Associate MAC address with traffic; TCP/IP addresses are transient and are irrelevant. A few people know how to change the MAC address, but the vast majority believe it's a rock solid way to associate data.
Both organizations have as their business models, using their knowledge of YOU and everyone using their services to make money. Now, you tell me: might there be just a teensy weensy little temptation to just manipulate that data a bit? Hmmmm?
Google and MS have kept geo-located MAC addresses for WiFi connections about millions of people. They have fat databases to mine. I call that: motive and opportunity. Just 'cause you want behavior? RZ is a fascist in the making.
No. This is about his business model, not about behavior. Tracking a MAC address is normal these days. Facebook knows where most conversations come from, and what Facebook needs are the specifics so as to tie you into a profile.
Google is worse still, but Google is more clever and knows most everything about you, right down to the freckles on your butt.
Not necessarily. It means actually spending money to do QA, uniting developer teams, using fuzzing to explore hacking your own code, and low-hanging-fruit examinations of your code. For a long time, certain OS versions just didn't do any of that.
Operating systems were designed for geeks, not civilians. Civilians have money; so the scammers wrote exploit code for profit. Child's play script kiddy junk. Real coders got involved and went for bigger money. Now it's out of control, and Anonymous and LulzSec make fools out of people that were sitting fat and pretty because they bought the "cure" after a golf game. Now they're twitching.
Windows has vulnerabilities, but a huge war chest. If they'd spent part of that war chest on real design and security, it would be a smaller war chest. The same goes for Apple (let the fanbois begin) as the latest APNC exploit was just fixed for iOS. The problem is: it's not expensive, it's process control and design and testing, grunt work that no one wants to do, because they too, want: profits. When love of the art is involved, and darwinian results are in the mix, you get a Linux or BSD or Solaris, all three of which are vastly more solid than the competition. That's what it takes, the ethics of doing it right.
I hear you talking, while oil companies show some of the highest profits in their histories, while the speculators jar it up further by yanking each little nugget of negative news into a buying frenzy that's driven the prices to consumers to historic highs.
We don't have a drug addiction problem. We have a concerted effort over the past 60 years to remove infrastructure that aided public transportation and trains, to aircraft and countless lanes of highways and strip malls. If you believe that supply and demand, the classical capitalistic tug of war has ANYTHING to do with what you see at the pump, your naivete may only be exceeded by your misplaced trust.
Reputations? They have reputations? As gouging and lying sons of bitches, yes.
Don't drink the koolaid about the bogus problem with these subsidized, molly-coddled, tax-subsidized, media manipulating bunch of crow bait.
They want to break up to see their new tracking stocks soar. Make no mistake about the intent: this is about making more money with the same market-manipulated evil that they've used for the past 40 years.
I don't look at the ads. You learn how to ignore them as they're only mildly relevant. They make some people money in a vacuous ecosystem, but for many of us, they're just visual noise in the background.
Twitter doesn't have them, doesn't require a smartphone or above, and gets a lot of work done with great brevity. Google is like an army worth of features to get lost in, some good, some bad. Twitter is very and deceptively simple, and there's wisdom in doing at least one thing right.
Yeah, I've tried G+. No, it's not the great white hope. And I trust Google with privacy like I trust a 12 year old kid with a loaded riot pump shotgun. You just know they're going to pull the trigger. It's in their DNA.
To suddenly put people into mental health programs because they need them runs counter to the policies we've had for years. Uusally, the best policy idea government's been able to "think" up has been to put people into institutions, then close the institutions and let them fend for independent benefit approval processes on their own, which they can't do, and therefore decreases the monies spent by government. Then, they can shoot that KGB person (e.g. act out their psychosis), and get back into an institution freely. But they're on another ledger sheet as a criminal, not a mental health patient. Keeps things tidy that way.
To directly answer your question, however, because there is an insanity defense, lots of people will go to great lengths to try and fudge that defense in the hopes of not going to prison or becoming a felon for future purposes. So the system is highly manipulated with prosecution and defense each calling in "experts" to add testimony. Batshit-crazy is in the eye of the beholder, sadly, and is not subject to the same regimens used in other places. I have friends that are unmedicated bipolars; they're walking time bombs. I suspect there are millions more out there, just in the USA.
CERT is an advisory; it catches about 20%. We need hardened stuff, then something that rats out vendors when they don't fix stuff. Actual process needs to be done, not "we'll get around to it when we feel like it." Then REAL statistics, not BS citations that are difficult to compare. Then we spank with our spending habits. Find the culprits. Jail them.
Fear-based buying. Don't put your faith in your economy, get that gold. It's a "survivalist" mentality that only serves to make people look like idiots.
I guess we have to disagree. The militias are actually waning, as are some of the stupid white folks behaving badly. The problem with the Internet is that it's autistic, and all sounds are shouted at the same level. They didn't get formed that way-- it's a medium problem.
It's been no fun, but it doesn't have the earmarks of madness you believe it does, IMHO. If you're in a place where they're not helping each other out, move. Or spend some karma.
Truly, the gun thing is overblown. The situation you describe is rife with paranoia. It's that sort of mentality that demonstrates who's able to be a survivor (hint: guns are short term, farming is long term).
I have four gardens right now; big to tiny. All produce. I'm different, admittedly. Lots of people have guns, and most of them have brains. They had guns in the '30s, too. Lots of them. My ancestors had them. But they didn't go uncivil. They worked hard. They made it thru. The megacorps you describe could ship food overseas-- if people could pay for it. It doesn't do much good rotting in the fields, just like subdivisions of empty homes benefits no one. You have no faith in your fellow Americans to do the right thing. Reach out, and you'll be happily amazed.
It might sound strange, but I have hope for humanity. People pulled thru the 1930s depression, and it can happen again. The fear-based crazies are what you have to worry about. They're the ones that will use the weapons. I don't think it will come to that at all.
My parents were born just before the depression and lived thru it all. They understand frugality. Wait until people don't understand frugality, as they'll have a humbling experience.
Who is hiding what, one wonders. Big gulp of articles, but what was the motive? What's in there that meant breaking a lot of rules (potentially laws, too)?
Is there something curious in that batch? Has anyone combed the evidence? Is there an FOIA in this? One wonders.
You would argue that Clinton started it all. I would claim that the economy burnt out during Clinton's era, and we started with NAFTA to export US jobs, causing a slow meltdown that caused housing prices to devalue. That never happened before.
The war on Afghanistan had a bit of justification, as Al Qaeda at the time was thought to be sheltered by the "Taliban". The war in Iraq was strictly about pissing off GB and oil. All else was a red herring. There were no WoMD there; never were.
The "war on terror" was a method to constrain the populace against a tiny faction of highly effective terrorists, all while gaining the enmity of much of the Islamic world. The oil, and the money, was burning thru the fingers of government, and contractors like Halliburton.
The banks, feeling an uptake in the economy, made obfuscating tradeable instruments, while pumping mortgage money out like it was made of thin air-- and it was. Now that the music has stopped, the banks have gotten off largely free from prosecution.
That congress was duped into one war, and underwent a siege mentality for the war on terror, doesn't forgive their actions. The Libyan action is wrong, too, IMHO.
You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts. The same goes for me. We'll be unable to cite facts that support our arguments that we can both agree upon.
The ACORN debacle is IMHO, a distracting argument for the problem at hand. My citation brings up three facts regarding the wars, the banks, and who was at the helm at the time. I don't believe that there is a method to be able to address your concerns.
A politician not keeping campaign promises? Unheard of! Stop the presses!
Yeah, he over promised. Find me a pol that doesn't.
The CRA allowed banks to punk FannieMae and FreddieMac really well. Soaked them clean through. And we, the US taxpayers, get the bag. The banks knew the assets were toxic, and that they were "too big to fail". Some of them had forced mergers, but the orgs they were merged into were just as toxic as they were-- they just had more clever accounting to mask the damage.
Trying to tip this out of Geo Bush's barrel is an argument that is difficult to win. Obama or anyone stepping into the presidency had a no-fun situation. But bringing up Acorn reveals your bias. And since that bias begs me to believe that your fingers are in your ears, have a nice day.
Obama comes in with three wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the mysterious War on Terror. The banks have just trashed the economy by selling derivates as actual notes, but NO ONE even to this day, understands their motive.
Obama gets stonewalled wherever he goes, first by the "nyets" covering their wealth, then by the juggernauts that warn that the economy will just keel over into the actual depression if we don't spend quantum dollars.
Yeah, Obama isn't a saint. But compared to the madness of Geo Bush et al, he's fending well. Except for the new Deficit Dummies, the lemming-like freshmen congressmen with all that great experience and God on their side. Yeah.
Corporatists? No such thing. Corporate politics as an unnnamed political party? Absolutely. Well-financed, too.
TFA didn't have any proof of this; is there another link that shows that they did indeed patch the firmware? Can it be remotely updated in a forced push? That would be unusual. Often they're user-driven push routines.
Slashdot Mirror
Right.
Associate MAC address with traffic; TCP/IP addresses are transient and are irrelevant. A few people know how to change the MAC address, but the vast majority believe it's a rock solid way to associate data.
Is FB doing everything? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15290120,00.html
Both organizations have as their business models, using their knowledge of YOU and everyone using their services to make money. Now, you tell me: might there be just a teensy weensy little temptation to just manipulate that data a bit? Hmmmm?
Google and MS have kept geo-located MAC addresses for WiFi connections about millions of people. They have fat databases to mine. I call that: motive and opportunity. Just 'cause you want behavior? RZ is a fascist in the making.
No. This is about his business model, not about behavior. Tracking a MAC address is normal these days. Facebook knows where most conversations come from, and what Facebook needs are the specifics so as to tie you into a profile.
Google is worse still, but Google is more clever and knows most everything about you, right down to the freckles on your butt.
We disagree. You haven't read much Ben, have you? You should brush up on your Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and perhaps: Mussolini.
Not necessarily. It means actually spending money to do QA, uniting developer teams, using fuzzing to explore hacking your own code, and low-hanging-fruit examinations of your code. For a long time, certain OS versions just didn't do any of that.
Operating systems were designed for geeks, not civilians. Civilians have money; so the scammers wrote exploit code for profit. Child's play script kiddy junk. Real coders got involved and went for bigger money. Now it's out of control, and Anonymous and LulzSec make fools out of people that were sitting fat and pretty because they bought the "cure" after a golf game. Now they're twitching.
Windows has vulnerabilities, but a huge war chest. If they'd spent part of that war chest on real design and security, it would be a smaller war chest. The same goes for Apple (let the fanbois begin) as the latest APNC exploit was just fixed for iOS. The problem is: it's not expensive, it's process control and design and testing, grunt work that no one wants to do, because they too, want: profits. When love of the art is involved, and darwinian results are in the mix, you get a Linux or BSD or Solaris, all three of which are vastly more solid than the competition. That's what it takes, the ethics of doing it right.
Boo and hoo.
I hear you talking, while oil companies show some of the highest profits in their histories, while the speculators jar it up further by yanking each little nugget of negative news into a buying frenzy that's driven the prices to consumers to historic highs.
We don't have a drug addiction problem. We have a concerted effort over the past 60 years to remove infrastructure that aided public transportation and trains, to aircraft and countless lanes of highways and strip malls. If you believe that supply and demand, the classical capitalistic tug of war has ANYTHING to do with what you see at the pump, your naivete may only be exceeded by your misplaced trust.
Reputations? They have reputations? As gouging and lying sons of bitches, yes.
Don't drink the koolaid about the bogus problem with these subsidized, molly-coddled, tax-subsidized, media manipulating bunch of crow bait.
They want to break up to see their new tracking stocks soar. Make no mistake about the intent: this is about making more money with the same market-manipulated evil that they've used for the past 40 years.
There are lots of theories of law that might prohibit him from speaking. Contracts with three-letter agencies might prohibi
I don't look at the ads. You learn how to ignore them as they're only mildly relevant. They make some people money in a vacuous ecosystem, but for many of us, they're just visual noise in the background.
Twitter doesn't have them, doesn't require a smartphone or above, and gets a lot of work done with great brevity. Google is like an army worth of features to get lost in, some good, some bad. Twitter is very and deceptively simple, and there's wisdom in doing at least one thing right.
Yeah, I've tried G+. No, it's not the great white hope. And I trust Google with privacy like I trust a 12 year old kid with a loaded riot pump shotgun. You just know they're going to pull the trigger. It's in their DNA.
To suddenly put people into mental health programs because they need them runs counter to the policies we've had for years. Uusally, the best policy idea government's been able to "think" up has been to put people into institutions, then close the institutions and let them fend for independent benefit approval processes on their own, which they can't do, and therefore decreases the monies spent by government. Then, they can shoot that KGB person (e.g. act out their psychosis), and get back into an institution freely. But they're on another ledger sheet as a criminal, not a mental health patient. Keeps things tidy that way.
To directly answer your question, however, because there is an insanity defense, lots of people will go to great lengths to try and fudge that defense in the hopes of not going to prison or becoming a felon for future purposes. So the system is highly manipulated with prosecution and defense each calling in "experts" to add testimony. Batshit-crazy is in the eye of the beholder, sadly, and is not subject to the same regimens used in other places. I have friends that are unmedicated bipolars; they're walking time bombs. I suspect there are millions more out there, just in the USA.
CERT is an advisory; it catches about 20%. We need hardened stuff, then something that rats out vendors when they don't fix stuff. Actual process needs to be done, not "we'll get around to it when we feel like it." Then REAL statistics, not BS citations that are difficult to compare. Then we spank with our spending habits. Find the culprits. Jail them.
Fear-based buying. Don't put your faith in your economy, get that gold. It's a "survivalist" mentality that only serves to make people look like idiots.
I guess we have to disagree. The militias are actually waning, as are some of the stupid white folks behaving badly. The problem with the Internet is that it's autistic, and all sounds are shouted at the same level. They didn't get formed that way-- it's a medium problem.
It's been no fun, but it doesn't have the earmarks of madness you believe it does, IMHO. If you're in a place where they're not helping each other out, move. Or spend some karma.
Truly, the gun thing is overblown. The situation you describe is rife with paranoia. It's that sort of mentality that demonstrates who's able to be a survivor (hint: guns are short term, farming is long term).
I have four gardens right now; big to tiny. All produce. I'm different, admittedly. Lots of people have guns, and most of them have brains. They had guns in the '30s, too. Lots of them. My ancestors had them. But they didn't go uncivil. They worked hard. They made it thru. The megacorps you describe could ship food overseas-- if people could pay for it. It doesn't do much good rotting in the fields, just like subdivisions of empty homes benefits no one. You have no faith in your fellow Americans to do the right thing. Reach out, and you'll be happily amazed.
It seems like a huge "liberation", but mindless in purpose. Sort of almost anti-Wikileaks in mentality if you think about it.
It might sound strange, but I have hope for humanity. People pulled thru the 1930s depression, and it can happen again. The fear-based crazies are what you have to worry about. They're the ones that will use the weapons. I don't think it will come to that at all.
My parents were born just before the depression and lived thru it all. They understand frugality. Wait until people don't understand frugality, as they'll have a humbling experience.
Who is hiding what, one wonders. Big gulp of articles, but what was the motive? What's in there that meant breaking a lot of rules (potentially laws, too)?
Is there something curious in that batch? Has anyone combed the evidence? Is there an FOIA in this? One wonders.
Hah.
Mine was in Borders stock.
As a viable forum for dialog, Slashdot is among the weakest.
I would cite Media Matters as regards ACORN (viz: http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=ACORN&x=0&y=0). You would cite RedState (viz: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=013850339485084395743%3Aernse1bcnr0&ie=UTF-8&q=acorn&sa=Search&siteurl=www.redstate.com%2F).
You would argue that Clinton started it all. I would claim that the economy burnt out during Clinton's era, and we started with NAFTA to export US jobs, causing a slow meltdown that caused housing prices to devalue. That never happened before.
The war on Afghanistan had a bit of justification, as Al Qaeda at the time was thought to be sheltered by the "Taliban". The war in Iraq was strictly about pissing off GB and oil. All else was a red herring. There were no WoMD there; never were.
The "war on terror" was a method to constrain the populace against a tiny faction of highly effective terrorists, all while gaining the enmity of much of the Islamic world. The oil, and the money, was burning thru the fingers of government, and contractors like Halliburton.
The banks, feeling an uptake in the economy, made obfuscating tradeable instruments, while pumping mortgage money out like it was made of thin air-- and it was. Now that the music has stopped, the banks have gotten off largely free from prosecution.
That congress was duped into one war, and underwent a siege mentality for the war on terror, doesn't forgive their actions. The Libyan action is wrong, too, IMHO.
You haven't touched unfunded pension liabilities yet. Add that into the mix. Please.
We must disagree.
You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts. The same goes for me. We'll be unable to cite facts that support our arguments that we can both agree upon.
The ACORN debacle is IMHO, a distracting argument for the problem at hand. My citation brings up three facts regarding the wars, the banks, and who was at the helm at the time. I don't believe that there is a method to be able to address your concerns.
A politician not keeping campaign promises? Unheard of! Stop the presses!
Yeah, he over promised. Find me a pol that doesn't.
The CRA allowed banks to punk FannieMae and FreddieMac really well. Soaked them clean through. And we, the US taxpayers, get the bag. The banks knew the assets were toxic, and that they were "too big to fail". Some of them had forced mergers, but the orgs they were merged into were just as toxic as they were-- they just had more clever accounting to mask the damage.
Trying to tip this out of Geo Bush's barrel is an argument that is difficult to win. Obama or anyone stepping into the presidency had a no-fun situation. But bringing up Acorn reveals your bias. And since that bias begs me to believe that your fingers are in your ears, have a nice day.
Sure.
Obama comes in with three wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the mysterious War on Terror. The banks have just trashed the economy by selling derivates as actual notes, but NO ONE even to this day, understands their motive.
Obama gets stonewalled wherever he goes, first by the "nyets" covering their wealth, then by the juggernauts that warn that the economy will just keel over into the actual depression if we don't spend quantum dollars.
Yeah, Obama isn't a saint. But compared to the madness of Geo Bush et al, he's fending well. Except for the new Deficit Dummies, the lemming-like freshmen congressmen with all that great experience and God on their side. Yeah.
Corporatists? No such thing. Corporate politics as an unnnamed political party? Absolutely. Well-financed, too.
TFA didn't have any proof of this; is there another link that shows that they did indeed patch the firmware? Can it be remotely updated in a forced push? That would be unusual. Often they're user-driven push routines.
Thanks.