It's in Facebook's best interest to say no anyway (since censoring comments would only make people want to leave and thus would reduce revenue at the additional cost of developer time), and by doing so they appear to be heroic. This was perhaps the easiest press release ever.
Just wanted to clarify with my sibling posts that I'm not even saying that the report is wrong, just that it's incredibly biased. As a professional web developer, I'm quite certain there are many sites with XSS / CSRF / SQL injection issues.
There are ways of detecting ad-blockers in use. Use one of them to detect when people are blocking your ad, and present a message saying something "please whitelist Slashdot, we need the revenue." Allow the user to dismiss the box and remember their dismissal. Make it a small message; if it's anything like the ads for Wikipedia's fundraising drives, it'll be blocked en masse and forgotten.
My guess is that if the ads are not obnoxious (which is admittedly another thing that needs work... we hate Flash ads), a lot of people will follow through and whitelist. If there's a revenue problem, that will at least help in the short term.
Speaking of the Razr, the new Droid Razrs (as well as other smartphones) have been having problems across the East coast on Verizon since yesterday, including mine. Basically, they're not able to connect to 4G, and often lose data entirely. If they don't get it fixed today I'm going to fight for a credit... which doesn't look good on them seeing as how I've only had the phone for about two weeks.
Which is why, if you're managing a project, you make it time and expenses with a cap, the cap being based on their initial estimate. That way, they're contracted to finish the project for you (and the contract should be spelled out such that they only get paid if the project is finished to the requirements initially put forward), you still only pay by the hour (and you can make them document every hour), and you're protected against runaway billable hours by the cap.
The type of criminal activity in the US and international finance industries, however, is unprecedented and capable of causing far more damage. Unfortunately, we don't bring as many resources to bear on the greater threat to the country.
And they, in turn, get the money back from the institution to which it was deposited, plus a chargeback fee. They're likely still either breaking even or profiting from the situation.
Sorry, bad attribution. I think I got the idea from TFA (which I did actually read):
"In regards to the recent demonstrations and protests across the globe, we are going to turn the tables on the banks," according to a YouTube video uploaded on Saturday, which formally announced #OpRobinHood.
"Operation Robin Hood is going to return the money to those who have been cheated by our system and most importantly to those hurt by our banks," it said. "Operation Robin Hood will take credit cards and donate to the 99% as well as various charities around the globe. The banks will be forced to reimburse the people there (sic) money back."
So they're (theoretically) by Anon in support of Occupy. In any case, I stand by what I said about them. I agree with many of their goals, I just wish they would actually propose solutions to achieve them.
The point is to help the people at the bottom. You know, the ones who are homeless, living on scraps they fish out of the trash of idiots like you who don't give a damn about anybody but yourself.
What the fuck are you on about? I pay my taxes and I donate to charity when I feel like it. I assure you I'm far from the 1% the Occupy people are always talking about (otherwise I wouldn't have a one and a half hour commute, both ways, every day).
This operation is talking about taking money from stolen credit cards and donating it to charity. Let's disect that a bit.
First, you're stealing people's livelihoods. Credit cards are often attached to bank accounts. You could be bankrupting people, or putting them in a state where they can't pay their bills. I have a problem with that from the get-go. But it gets worse.
When the fraudulent transaction goes through, the banks will take an interchange fee averaging about 2% of the transaction value straight from the top before the charity even gets it. So the banks are already laughing their asses off at this plan, since what Occupy thinks is going to hurt them is going to GIVE THEM MONEY.
So when the unfortunate person owning the credit card sees that they've had their money stolen, they're going to try a chargeback. Their bank may refuse this, but especially if it's a credit card, they'll likely get their money back. In the middle of this, the bank will likely take a chargeback feefrom the charity since they'd have a hard time taking it from the person who's had their money stolen.
Now, in this circumstance there are likely to be a large number of chargebacks against the charity, which may further increase their liability:
Currently both Visa and Mastercard require all merchants to maintain no more than 1% of dollar volume processed to be chargebacks. If the percentage goes above, there are fines starting at $5000 – $25,000 to the merchant's processing bank and ultimately passed on to the merchant.
All of that money goes to the banks and the credit card companies.
So what's the final score here?
Victim: Either has their money back after losing it for potentially several days, or if they're unfortunate, has simply lost their money entirely. Charity: Probably doesn't have much extra money after most people chargeback their fraudulent transactions. Banks: Got around 2% of every single transaction involved here, more in the cases of chargebacks. Stole money from both the target and the charity without being culpable for any of it.
I'd say I was shocked that nobody thought of this, but it completely matches with everything else Occupy has done: sitting on their asses, breaking the law when convenient to them, proposing no actual solutions, and splitting their focus in a million different directions without putting any real effort into a single one.
They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?
98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.
And the fact is, early, pointless comments like this one get modded insightful, whereas later, superior replies do not receive the same attention.
This is a far bigger issue than the GP's problem. While if you post a comment that is more in line with Slashdot thinking it is likely to get more mod points, it's not by a huge margin, and metamod takes care of moderators with an agenda. Most posts that are modded down are done so because the poster was insulting in some way.
If we created some sort of "mod ordering" that appeared by default when one has mod points that highlighted, for example, posts that have not yet been modded but have several replies, it might alleviate this a bit.
In a civil suit, you don't have to prove anything, your argument just has to be more compelling than your opponent's (I believe the term is "plurality of evidence"). MAFIAA's contractors can make some very nice-looking court presentations.
The only way you can argue that the updater isn't at fault is if you are going to blame the exploit that installs the malware? But by that definition, a manufacturer would never be assigned any blame for vulnerabilities, it would always be the person doing the exploiting. Does that make sense? Try this: "Microsoft bears no responsibility for any holes in Windows, even when it knows about them and doesn't fix them. The blame lies entirely with the exploit." Do you still agree with this logic when the manufacturer of the system is Microsoft, rather than Apple?
26. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. You can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages. This limitation applies to - anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on third party Internet sites, or third party programs; and - claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable law. It also applies even if - repair, replacement or a refund for the software does not fully compensate you for any losses; or - Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.
Carrier IQ would probably like nothing more than to be completely forgotten by the public, since that's not their market (the carriers are). Almost anything would be worth it to them to get Eckhart et al off their back.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in Facebook's best interest to say no anyway (since censoring comments would only make people want to leave and thus would reduce revenue at the additional cost of developer time), and by doing so they appear to be heroic. This was perhaps the easiest press release ever.
I'd take both pills at once and see what happens.
Just wanted to clarify with my sibling posts that I'm not even saying that the report is wrong, just that it's incredibly biased. As a professional web developer, I'm quite certain there are many sites with XSS / CSRF / SQL injection issues.
There are ways of detecting ad-blockers in use. Use one of them to detect when people are blocking your ad, and present a message saying something "please whitelist Slashdot, we need the revenue." Allow the user to dismiss the box and remember their dismissal. Make it a small message; if it's anything like the ads for Wikipedia's fundraising drives, it'll be blocked en masse and forgotten.
My guess is that if the ads are not obnoxious (which is admittedly another thing that needs work... we hate Flash ads), a lot of people will follow through and whitelist. If there's a revenue problem, that will at least help in the short term.
Security auditing company produces report that conveniently shows that their services are desperately needed. News at eleven.
Speaking of the Razr, the new Droid Razrs (as well as other smartphones) have been having problems across the East coast on Verizon since yesterday, including mine. Basically, they're not able to connect to 4G, and often lose data entirely. If they don't get it fixed today I'm going to fight for a credit... which doesn't look good on them seeing as how I've only had the phone for about two weeks.
Which is why, if you're managing a project, you make it time and expenses with a cap, the cap being based on their initial estimate. That way, they're contracted to finish the project for you (and the contract should be spelled out such that they only get paid if the project is finished to the requirements initially put forward), you still only pay by the hour (and you can make them document every hour), and you're protected against runaway billable hours by the cap.
Good developers should have no problem with this.
The type of criminal activity in the US and international finance industries, however, is unprecedented and capable of causing far more damage. Unfortunately, we don't bring as many resources to bear on the greater threat to the country.
Because the former controls the latter.
What company allows open access to payroll data, even to IT? I know I don't want to work there...
Considering they have a browser of their own, would it really be beneficial to Microsoft to sign with Firefox?
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. They're doing this explicitly and you agree with it? Personally, I don't like my tax dollars wasted...
This, times a million. Source: Many previous stories of people who notified organizations about security issues and were rewarded with a lawsuit.
Bring up Karl Marx before the Senate and see what kind of response you get.
Aren't most IT workers exempt anyway? (Not that I think they necessarily should be, but still.)
What makes you think that they'll stop with cable? Remember, most cable providers are ISPs as well.
And they, in turn, get the money back from the institution to which it was deposited, plus a chargeback fee. They're likely still either breaking even or profiting from the situation.
Sorry, bad attribution. I think I got the idea from TFA (which I did actually read):
"In regards to the recent demonstrations and protests across the globe, we are going to turn the tables on the banks," according to a YouTube video uploaded on Saturday, which formally announced #OpRobinHood.
"Operation Robin Hood is going to return the money to those who have been cheated by our system and most importantly to those hurt by our banks," it said. "Operation Robin Hood will take credit cards and donate to the 99% as well as various charities around the globe. The banks will be forced to reimburse the people there (sic) money back."
So they're (theoretically) by Anon in support of Occupy. In any case, I stand by what I said about them. I agree with many of their goals, I just wish they would actually propose solutions to achieve them.
The point is to help the people at the bottom. You know, the ones who are homeless, living on scraps they fish out of the trash of idiots like you who don't give a damn about anybody but yourself.
What the fuck are you on about? I pay my taxes and I donate to charity when I feel like it. I assure you I'm far from the 1% the Occupy people are always talking about (otherwise I wouldn't have a one and a half hour commute, both ways, every day).
This operation is talking about taking money from stolen credit cards and donating it to charity. Let's disect that a bit.
First, you're stealing people's livelihoods. Credit cards are often attached to bank accounts. You could be bankrupting people, or putting them in a state where they can't pay their bills. I have a problem with that from the get-go. But it gets worse.
When the fraudulent transaction goes through, the banks will take an interchange fee averaging about 2% of the transaction value straight from the top before the charity even gets it. So the banks are already laughing their asses off at this plan, since what Occupy thinks is going to hurt them is going to GIVE THEM MONEY.
So when the unfortunate person owning the credit card sees that they've had their money stolen, they're going to try a chargeback. Their bank may refuse this, but especially if it's a credit card, they'll likely get their money back. In the middle of this, the bank will likely take a chargeback fee from the charity since they'd have a hard time taking it from the person who's had their money stolen.
Now, in this circumstance there are likely to be a large number of chargebacks against the charity, which may further increase their liability:
Currently both Visa and Mastercard require all merchants to maintain no more than 1% of dollar volume processed to be chargebacks. If the percentage goes above, there are fines starting at $5000 – $25,000 to the merchant's processing bank and ultimately passed on to the merchant.
All of that money goes to the banks and the credit card companies.
So what's the final score here?
Victim: Either has their money back after losing it for potentially several days, or if they're unfortunate, has simply lost their money entirely.
Charity: Probably doesn't have much extra money after most people chargeback their fraudulent transactions.
Banks: Got around 2% of every single transaction involved here, more in the cases of chargebacks. Stole money from both the target and the charity without being culpable for any of it.
I'd say I was shocked that nobody thought of this, but it completely matches with everything else Occupy has done: sitting on their asses, breaking the law when convenient to them, proposing no actual solutions, and splitting their focus in a million different directions without putting any real effort into a single one.
They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?
98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.
And the fact is, early, pointless comments like this one get modded insightful, whereas later, superior replies do not receive the same attention.
This is a far bigger issue than the GP's problem. While if you post a comment that is more in line with Slashdot thinking it is likely to get more mod points, it's not by a huge margin, and metamod takes care of moderators with an agenda. Most posts that are modded down are done so because the poster was insulting in some way.
If we created some sort of "mod ordering" that appeared by default when one has mod points that highlighted, for example, posts that have not yet been modded but have several replies, it might alleviate this a bit.
Since when have jobs become the be-all and end-all of everything? Sometimes, technology means less human intervention is necessary. Deal with it.
In a civil suit, you don't have to prove anything, your argument just has to be more compelling than your opponent's (I believe the term is "plurality of evidence"). MAFIAA's contractors can make some very nice-looking court presentations.
The only way you can argue that the updater isn't at fault is if you are going to blame the exploit that installs the malware? But by that definition, a manufacturer would never be assigned any blame for vulnerabilities, it would always be the person doing the exploiting. Does that make sense? Try this: "Microsoft bears no responsibility for any holes in Windows, even when it knows about them and doesn't fix them. The blame lies entirely with the exploit." Do you still agree with this logic when the manufacturer of the system is Microsoft, rather than Apple?
Windows 7 Ultimate EULA
26. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. You can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages.
This limitation applies to
- anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on third party Internet sites, or third party programs; and
- claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable law.
It also applies even if
- repair, replacement or a refund for the software does not fully compensate you for any losses; or
- Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.
Emphasis added.
Carrier IQ would probably like nothing more than to be completely forgotten by the public, since that's not their market (the carriers are). Almost anything would be worth it to them to get Eckhart et al off their back.
I disagree. If you have to lie or be misleading to create an argument, you're better off not using it at all.