compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.)
Now you did it! You explained what "work from home" actually means... Thanks for letting management on...
Multi-monitor desktops and gaming on windows is effortless. On X it's frankly a chore.
If you truly think that windows is so much superior, why don't you fucking stay with windows rather than trying to convince people to make Linux as broken as Windows. We already have way to much crap such as this in Firefox because of people like you. We don't want background apps that steal our focus while doing important work. We want a browser history feature that works, even if some banks think otherwise. We want to have control over our window sizes. We want to be sure that the text shown as selected is indeed the text that will get pasted. We want error messages that tell as the real cause of an issue, rather than sending us on a wild goose chase.
These have been broken because at some point in time it was 'how it "works" on windows'. Funny thing is, in the meantime, windows has eventually seen that some of these were bad ideas, partly fixed the issues, but in Linux and Firefox we're still stuck with them.
But I want my apps to be able to change resolution,
Hopefully only with permission. I already dread the day when flash applets in web pages will be able to do this, and Firefox ignores the problem for 10 years...
Running in a window would not be desirable for some action games, where you might lose valuable time and lives if you accidentally move the mouse out of the window in the heat of the action...
One reason could be games or applications that can either run in their own window, or switch to full screen at the click of a button. Many movie-players work like that. So you can start them small, and once you reach the place where the "action" is, switch to full screen.
...it's a bit hard to know who those would be before they do it...
True enough. But once they do it, you know it. And hopefully you remove them from your facebook friend lists by then. And despite Murphy, usually their first blunder will be big enough to be eye-opening, yet small enough not to be life-changing...
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the loophole here is that you can be added to a group without your involvement or active consent, then surely that gives you an out when your ignorant homophobe of a father sees that you're associated with a queer choir group - say it was a case of mistaken identity or a prank or a troll or anything else you like.
Still awkward. Some LGBT people are in a situation where they consider coming out, but are not yet ready for it now. For them, the most comfortable situation is not to lie about it, but simply avoid the conversation.
Your solution would force them to lie, and make their later coming out (once they feel they are ready) more awkward.
O, and group memberships are just one way how such info can leak. Other ways are invitations to gay events (when you browse the event, you can see all invitees, even if they didn't accept to join yet), photo tags in obviously gay contexts, or lots of gay friends.
I strongly disagree. I have religious friends, I have gay friends, I have some few extreme guys as friends.
Did you ever consider staying friends with these people in real life, but not on facebook?
And with "these people", I don't mean all religious friends, all gay friends, and all friends with extreme views, but only those that would add you to groups without your consent...
All they would have to do is get their own CA trusted by a root trust, (which could have some PR)
... which would indeed be very obvious to Certificate Patrol, and would certainly embarass the "root trust" which certified the rogue CA.
they could simply get their own installed in their target(s) browsers
Sure. That's basically a similar approach to the Bundestrojaner, but instead of installing a keylogger, they would "just" install their rogue root certificate into the victim's browser.
Yes, I do know about load balancing between servers having differing certifcates, and yes, when I first got certificate patrol warnings about changing google certificates I did have a closer look at what was going on...
... but if this gets noticed (in the unlikely, but not impossible event where the victim had the Certificate Patrol firefox add-on), then suddenly the CA would have a major PR disaster on its hands.
Whereas a missing redirection to https would be blamed on a glitch in google's servers, or on the phase of the moon...
Just whithness what happened to this infamous Dutch CA, which got hacked, and suddenly had loads of bogus certifcate bearing its signature in circulation...
Smart spooks only risk revealing their power over their national CA when absolutely needed, and use more discrete ways against the small fry.
What else is the DOW than the representation of the sum of the value of the 30 most important stocks? So yes, if the DOW increases, the overall wealth of the investors (and speculators) does increase. After all, stocks are not just casino chips, but they represent a part in real companies of which some do produce real products, and earn real profits. That's where the long term increase comes from (even if lots of gambling goes on in the short term).
I thought it all was. I get redirected when I try to use non-SSL.
A smart man-in-the-middle would yank that redirection, and 99% of the users wouldn't notice them missing s after http. Or if the s is there, they would not notice that they are on gooogle.de rather than google.de...
As long as the users rely on redirections for their safety, rather than entering the full URL (including the https part) themselves, they are fair game for men in the middle.
And all this without even installing a Bundestrojaner on the victim's computer...
What exactly is the semantics of posting a sell order with two lower limits (one public, one secret)? When exactly would the secret lower limit apply? Obviously not immediately, or else the HFT's order would be executed before he could cancel it? And which brokerages allow retail speculators to place such orders?
Or are you maybe confusing this with a stop-loss order? (where the stop may indeed be secret, but would be the highest of the two bounds?) But in that case, the HFT would need to approach its target price from below, or else the order would execute for the highest price...
Also amazing that they did you the pleasure on keeping you updated on the fate of the criminals. Usually, even if they do react to your complaint, they wouldn't let you know that they did (protecting the accused's privacy while he is not yet convicted?).
When it comes to payment, a sure sign that it is a scam is when the business demands that you pay by wiring the money. If you wire money, it is not traceable or refundable, and it vanishes into the anonymous thief's pocket. So, always use credit cards or Pay-Pal, or something that offers protection. Only wire money if you absolutely, positively know the person to whom you are sending it.
Huh? Is that really how wire transfers are perceived in the United States?
In most of the civilized world, you can reverse a wire transfer if it turns out to be fraudulent (and if the fraudster hasn't withdrawn the money by then). And if he has the money withdrawn, you (or the police) now have at least his identity... Banks have an obligation to be positively sure about their customer's real-world identity before they open an account for them (the "know your customer" rule), as part of the regulations against money laundering.
There is a reason why most phishers use unwitting intermediaries ("money mules"): bank transfers are not anonymous for the receiver, and the receiver will be found out.
With Pay-Pal, on the other hand, you are at the whim of a company who isn't accountable to any banking rules (because it is not a bank), and who doesn't hesitate to confiscate or freeze account's contents if they believe you associated with somebody who associated with somebody who they believe defrauded them.
Couldn't the company just forward the mail proposing the "deal" to the review site's admin, who will (hopefully) quickly catch on, especially if more than one business has similar complaints!
Slashdot Mirror
compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.)
Now you did it! You explained what "work from home" actually means... Thanks for letting management on...
Multi-monitor desktops and gaming on windows is effortless. On X it's frankly a chore.
If you truly think that windows is so much superior, why don't you fucking stay with windows rather than trying to convince people to make Linux as broken as Windows. We already have way to much crap such as this in Firefox because of people like you. We don't want background apps that steal our focus while doing important work. We want a browser history feature that works, even if some banks think otherwise. We want to have control over our window sizes. We want to be sure that the text shown as selected is indeed the text that will get pasted. We want error messages that tell as the real cause of an issue, rather than sending us on a wild goose chase.
These have been broken because at some point in time it was 'how it "works" on windows'. Funny thing is, in the meantime, windows has eventually seen that some of these were bad ideas, partly fixed the issues, but in Linux and Firefox we're still stuck with them.
But I want my apps to be able to change resolution,
Hopefully only with permission. I already dread the day when flash applets in web pages will be able to do this, and Firefox ignores the problem for 10 years...
Many gamers will not accept windowed half-screen (or whatever fraction is required) gaming on their $1K LCD.
So, why don't these gamers give most of that $1K to charity, and buy a much cheaper (and lower resolution) LCD from what is left?
If these people have too much money, they should at least let everybody else use their hardware in the most efficient way.
Running in a window would not be desirable for some action games, where you might lose valuable time and lives if you accidentally move the mouse out of the window in the heat of the action...
One reason could be games or applications that can either run in their own window, or switch to full screen at the click of a button. Many movie-players work like that. So you can start them small, and once you reach the place where the "action" is, switch to full screen.
There's really no way to detect a forgery ...
Maybe a cryptographically secure checksum, using a secret nonce?
The shock of waking up next to a living, breathing woman every day
Nothing a small needle can't fix...
...it's a bit hard to know who those would be before they do it...
True enough. But once they do it, you know it. And hopefully you remove them from your facebook friend lists by then. And despite Murphy, usually their first blunder will be big enough to be eye-opening, yet small enough not to be life-changing...
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the loophole here is that you can be added to a group without your involvement or active consent, then surely that gives you an out when your ignorant homophobe of a father sees that you're associated with a queer choir group - say it was a case of mistaken identity or a prank or a troll or anything else you like.
Still awkward. Some LGBT people are in a situation where they consider coming out, but are not yet ready for it now. For them, the most comfortable situation is not to lie about it, but simply avoid the conversation.
Your solution would force them to lie, and make their later coming out (once they feel they are ready) more awkward.
O, and group memberships are just one way how such info can leak. Other ways are invitations to gay events (when you browse the event, you can see all invitees, even if they didn't accept to join yet), photo tags in obviously gay contexts, or lots of gay friends.
I think grand parent intended to joke that these Republicans willingly are in those groups already...
I strongly disagree. I have religious friends, I have gay friends, I have some few extreme guys as friends.
Did you ever consider staying friends with these people in real life, but not on facebook?
And with "these people", I don't mean all religious friends, all gay friends, and all friends with extreme views, but only those that would add you to groups without your consent...
All they would have to do is get their own CA trusted by a root trust, (which could have some PR)
... which would indeed be very obvious to Certificate Patrol, and would certainly embarass the "root trust" which certified the rogue CA.
they could simply get their own installed in their target(s) browsers
Sure. That's basically a similar approach to the Bundestrojaner, but instead of installing a keylogger, they would "just" install their rogue root certificate into the victim's browser.
Yes, I do know about load balancing between servers having differing certifcates, and yes, when I first got certificate patrol warnings about changing google certificates I did have a closer look at what was going on...
Whereas a missing redirection to https would be blamed on a glitch in google's servers, or on the phase of the moon...
Just whithness what happened to this infamous Dutch CA, which got hacked, and suddenly had loads of bogus certifcate bearing its signature in circulation...
Smart spooks only risk revealing their power over their national CA when absolutely needed, and use more discrete ways against the small fry.
What else is the DOW than the representation of the sum of the value of the 30 most important stocks? So yes, if the DOW increases, the overall wealth of the investors (and speculators) does increase. After all, stocks are not just casino chips, but they represent a part in real companies of which some do produce real products, and earn real profits. That's where the long term increase comes from (even if lots of gambling goes on in the short term).
I thought it all was. I get redirected when I try to use non-SSL.
A smart man-in-the-middle would yank that redirection, and 99% of the users wouldn't notice them missing s after http. Or if the s is there, they would not notice that they are on gooogle.de rather than google.de...
As long as the users rely on redirections for their safety, rather than entering the full URL (including the https part) themselves, they are fair game for men in the middle.
And all this without even installing a Bundestrojaner on the victim's computer...
And your point is....?
Or are you maybe confusing this with a stop-loss order? (where the stop may indeed be secret, but would be the highest of the two bounds?) But in that case, the HFT would need to approach its target price from below, or else the order would execute for the highest price...
If that is the case, why are business papers publishing it daily?
Where is the like button?
Also amazing that they did you the pleasure on keeping you updated on the fate of the criminals. Usually, even if they do react to your complaint, they wouldn't let you know that they did (protecting the accused's privacy while he is not yet convicted?).
In the other case, the review sites would get loads of such complaint, all containing mails with similar wording, from multiple businesses...
When it comes to payment, a sure sign that it is a scam is when the business demands that you pay by wiring the money. If you wire money, it is not traceable or refundable, and it vanishes into the anonymous thief's pocket. So, always use credit cards or Pay-Pal, or something that offers protection. Only wire money if you absolutely, positively know the person to whom you are sending it.
Huh? Is that really how wire transfers are perceived in the United States?
In most of the civilized world, you can reverse a wire transfer if it turns out to be fraudulent (and if the fraudster hasn't withdrawn the money by then). And if he has the money withdrawn, you (or the police) now have at least his identity... Banks have an obligation to be positively sure about their customer's real-world identity before they open an account for them (the "know your customer" rule), as part of the regulations against money laundering.
There is a reason why most phishers use unwitting intermediaries ("money mules"): bank transfers are not anonymous for the receiver, and the receiver will be found out.
With Pay-Pal, on the other hand, you are at the whim of a company who isn't accountable to any banking rules (because it is not a bank), and who doesn't hesitate to confiscate or freeze account's contents if they believe you associated with somebody who associated with somebody who they believe defrauded them.
Couldn't the company just forward the mail proposing the "deal" to the review site's admin, who will (hopefully) quickly catch on, especially if more than one business has similar complaints!