This really smacks of the nicotine cartel actually. They knew in the 1930's that smoking caused cancer and other lung-related issues -- but advertising, lobbying and payola won out against research and common sense for well over 50 years.
Unfortunately, while EU/NA are just hitting that "well maybe it really is an issue" point on AGW, the rest of the world is more concerned over getting enough affordable energy to even start thinking about this issue. So there's going to be an extremely long tail between when we start seeing concrete irrefutable evidence of how we're being hurt by AGW to when enough people start doing something about it to make any real difference. Doesn't mean that those who see the problems shouldn't try to address them as they are able to though.
What didn't happen was some asshat's desire to demonstrate his knowledge of "inside knowledge" outweighed the oath he or she took to keep their mouth(s) shut.
It wasn't the method that was used to gather the intelligence that caused the problem, it was the disclosure of that method.
Right... just like it isn't your fault if you lose business because you're selling clothes that don't actually exist -- it's the fault of the intern who broke his contract to tell people that they weren't wearing any clkothes.
Shoot the messenger much?
I'm sorry, but I'll take asshat with integrity over government operation that compromises global health integrity any day.
After all, what's the problem if there's nothing to hide?
Also: Doctors also take an oath. This one broke his oath before any other alleged oathbreaking took place (I pledge to uphold the Constitution trumps gag orders/NDAs, the Hippocratic oath trumps both).
Yeah, a page with a total of two links, both broken, is far more credible than a blog post with over 50 links to medical and scientific articles, journals, studies, and stories.
And what's not to trust about naturalnews.com, a site that links over and over again to articles and sources on naturalnews.com?
Naturally... they're a news site! Original Journalism, the Natural way!
The point I was making is that even if you pay cash, they aggregate enough data about where/when/what you purchase that when the information is cross-referenced in a data warehouse (yes, they trade information with other data brokers), the resulting matrix has a pretty good handle on you. Someone digging for an actual name and address using that info wouldn't have a hard time figuring out it was you.
But it only takes one CC purchase to strongly link this ID to your name and credit rating.
"But social interactions online are not just about what you say, but what others say about you."
Thats one of the reasons why I have no facebook or any other social network. If I can't control what happens with my data when they are in the internet (which others like the MPAA and Erdogan don't realize), and I can't control whether my data come online, I have no other option than to minimize my online presence.
Having no social media accounts just means that your social media profile hasn't been confirmed and associated with a credit report, not that it doesn't exist. For it to not exist, you need to ensure that everyone else who uses social media doesn't know you exist.
We also need better tracking of men who make women pregnant! See, for a first child, she's going to go through things she's never experienced before. They need to learn the Gerber brand, need to learn what diapers are about, told what's current at Toys 'R Us (are their any competitors left?) and more.
Sorry, you just can't opt out of that one. If you don't want it online, it's going to land in your mailbox.
That's why I search for baby names, cribs and daycares every 9 months or so. Surprisingly, they've stopped sending me "special deals" by email and mailbox; I guess they figure that after every 9 months for 15 years but with 0 purchases except as gifts, I'm probably not their target market.
I should have checked the F box on those surveys come to think of it... that'd have confused them even more.
The data you put on the form has 0 value to them: it's what you purchase with the card, when, and where that they're after. They can probably figure out exactly who you are and where you live just from your purchase data.
This is why some companies will ONLY honour the actual card, and reject phone-generated codes, telling them your phone number, etc: they don't want your purchase data to get mixed up with someone else using the same tracking number.
Personally, I think they'd do better just to use a phone's MAC instead; that'd be more reliable for them than a shareable card, and the MAC would be the same across businesses for advanced data sharing opportunities.
Plus, I'd be able to randomly generate a new one whenever I wanted:)
Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition.
Which part? The constitution has a lot to say about land, but not much to say about airspace from what I've read, other than in how it relates to land or personal freedom.
This does raise a question though: if you commit a crime while in the air over New York, that's not NYPD jurisdiction -- it's federal jurisdiction and handled by the FAA. But the FAA doesn't have policing powers; they can only levy a fine. So does that mean if someone robs me while I'm in a helicopter over NYC, the FBI get involved?
OK: so that means they're the ones who control http://www.poweruptoys.com/ paper airplanes, as well as gliders, parachutes, kites and flying squirrels.
But then, the FAA is responsible for tall buildings as well (buildings that penetrate US Airspace unduly) and other tall structures -- they mandate blinking lights and radio beacons so that pilots can avoid the obstacles.
Basically, they're in charge of ensuring that objects don't run into each other in an unsafe manner. This looks like a case of someone flying into something in an unsafe manner. Flying within a certain distance (height or horizon) of a heavily populated area is also their ballpark. Anything flying indoors is not.
I'll repeat what I said: they're not calling for banning guns, they're calling for regulation. In other words, they're not saying "nobody can own a firearm" -- they're saying "only specially certified people can own this kind of firearm." Just like I can't go buy an earth mover and drive it on a public road, or buy an airplane and fly it wherever I want. As I pointed out, the big difference is that firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, unlike our "transportation rights" via specific means.
Talking about a blanket ban on guns and talking about restrictions/regulation are completely different things. Did you really only see that one sentence from my post? Your response makes you look like a member of one of those extreme right wing groups, instead of the logical person you actually (probably) are.
If you're not talking about gun bans, don't conflate banning guns with what's really happening -- call out the actual abuses and then people can have a logical debate on the issue instead of throwing more left and right-leaning FUD on the fire.
And making this into a partisan issue is silly: we all know that while certain groups of politicians pay lip service to one stance or another on private ownership of assault weapons (including firearms), it's the government as a whole who have been doing what they have been doing, and the implementations have been pushed by unelected lobbyists and carried out by unelected career government employees. Making this a Dem/Rep issue just ads yet another layer of distraction from the real issues: social treatment of firearms, firearm safety, and the right to overthrow government when it becomes too self-serving.
Seems to me there's a simpler solution to these: have the gun "safety" be a wrist tether with a pin. Part of arming the gun involves inserting the pin. A quick visual check will tell whether or not it is inserted.
No electronics, no hidden bits, just a simple tether like on exercise and water sports equipment. The tech has been in use for years, shouldn't be difficult to move to a gun.
If I were with the police, I sure wouldn't want that magazine safety, as you can't easily check and see if it is on or not. I also wouldn't want the proximity safety, as there are too many things that could go wrong (RF jammer, anyone?).
But a simple pin and tether mechanism ensures that the gun use is at least intentional. Key the pin to the specific gun for an extra layer of security (both ways -- you can't just jam something in the hole to release the safety, and you can't use just any gun if you've got the tether).
Any legislation enabled should at least allow for this kind of tech.
Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base.
They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....
No, you see the left calling for tougher safety regulations for the construction, sale, and use of automobiles. Think mirrors, seat belts, ABS, airbags, driving impairment laws, etc.
You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.
Of course, one significant difference which people don't tend to get is that there's no constitutional right to drive an automobile, especially on public roadways.
In reality, the heartbeats had no place in OpenSSL; if you want a heartbeat, you can implement it on the next layer up the stack, and this should be enough to hold the connection open. In the few instances where a heartbeat has helped me, there was a better way to handle the situation (as it was usually required due to bad router configuration in the first place). Implementing transport connection quality monitoring code inside a transport encryption library just leads to stuff like heartbleed. LibreSSL is reimplementing it correctly.
A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99.
So, I hook my smartphone up to my 75 inch TV & save $2? I'll stick with unlimited streaming, thanks. MKV files as a fallback. I haven't yet, and don't intend to ever, purchased a DRM'd video. I buy non-DRM mp3s all the time now.
Indeed -- and how would this work for something like an AppleTV? It has no screen, so would they charge the max price? In that case, I can see a market for devices with tiny screens that demand high resolution video and just happen to be able to broadcast as well.
It's a key exchange -- the vendor presents the charge and the user presents the one-time encoded authentication token. Both of these are sent upstream to the authorization server, which then queries the merchant bank and cardholder bank to verify the token and the authorization request. They then send a signed response back down the line so that the card knows it was their issuer who authorized the request, the merchant bank knows the cardholder is good for the charge, and the merchant never sees anything at all identifiable.
This is how the rest of the world has done things for a decade. There is zero reason for a merchant to know anything other than that the customer is good for the credit, and that the banks will back the transaction. The rest of the transaction is done between banks, not people and merchants.
It still boggles my mind that a country that values anonymous cash so much would be so tied to a credit system that leaks personal information like a sieve, PCI DSS notwithstanding.
Square will have to do what PayPal Here does in territories with Chip and Pin, and that's replace their device with one that has a chip reader.
Of course, the PayPal Here reader with Chip and Pin is almost ten times the cost of the US PayPal Here swipe reader.
Well, it really depends. Without chip and pin, the vendor assumes all responsibility for chargebacks. It will be a decision for each square user as to whether it is more profitable to assume liability or pay for the more expensive reader. upgrade.
I think you're missing the point of the headline. It obviously is trying to communicate the fact that some Stanford bioengineers developed the Neuocore chip 9,000 times faster than the PC did.
Indeed... if it took them 15 years, then we'll be waiting another 134,075 years for the PC to develop something similar. Or is that become something similar?
I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
That would just result in a law being passed that somehow ends up with the government giving $0.01/year to all those people it thinks shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Anyone who is against net neutrality either (1) has no understanding of what it means, or (2) is being bankrolled by a corporate interest. I doubt that the FCC doesn't understand what net neutrality is, so that only leaves option (2).
Funny how net neutrality suddenly dies as soon as a former telecom lobbyist/CEO became the FCC chairman.
I'm against net neutrality, and have been ever since congress decided to change what "net neutrality" meant. I'm all for common carriers being treated as common carriers though, and for mail laws to apply to data packets (inspection of packets contents for the purpose of routing the packets is OK, not for the purpose of data mining or prioritizing the packets -- we've got headers for that; use them).
Slashdot Mirror
This really smacks of the nicotine cartel actually. They knew in the 1930's that smoking caused cancer and other lung-related issues -- but advertising, lobbying and payola won out against research and common sense for well over 50 years.
Unfortunately, while EU/NA are just hitting that "well maybe it really is an issue" point on AGW, the rest of the world is more concerned over getting enough affordable energy to even start thinking about this issue. So there's going to be an extremely long tail between when we start seeing concrete irrefutable evidence of how we're being hurt by AGW to when enough people start doing something about it to make any real difference. Doesn't mean that those who see the problems shouldn't try to address them as they are able to though.
What didn't happen was some asshat's desire to demonstrate his knowledge of "inside knowledge" outweighed the oath he or she took to keep their mouth(s) shut.
It wasn't the method that was used to gather the intelligence that caused the problem, it was the disclosure of that method.
Right... just like it isn't your fault if you lose business because you're selling clothes that don't actually exist -- it's the fault of the intern who broke his contract to tell people that they weren't wearing any clkothes.
Shoot the messenger much?
I'm sorry, but I'll take asshat with integrity over government operation that compromises global health integrity any day.
After all, what's the problem if there's nothing to hide?
Also: Doctors also take an oath. This one broke his oath before any other alleged oathbreaking took place (I pledge to uphold the Constitution trumps gag orders/NDAs, the Hippocratic oath trumps both).
Yeah, a page with a total of two links, both broken, is far more credible than a blog post with over 50 links to medical and scientific articles, journals, studies, and stories.
And what's not to trust about naturalnews.com, a site that links over and over again to articles and sources on naturalnews.com?
Naturally... they're a news site! Original Journalism, the Natural way!
The point I was making is that even if you pay cash, they aggregate enough data about where/when/what you purchase that when the information is cross-referenced in a data warehouse (yes, they trade information with other data brokers), the resulting matrix has a pretty good handle on you. Someone digging for an actual name and address using that info wouldn't have a hard time figuring out it was you.
But it only takes one CC purchase to strongly link this ID to your name and credit rating.
"But social interactions online are not just about what you say, but what others say about you."
Thats one of the reasons why I have no facebook or any other social network. If I can't control what happens with my data when they are in the internet (which others like the MPAA and Erdogan don't realize), and I can't control whether my data come online, I have no other option than to minimize my online presence.
Having no social media accounts just means that your social media profile hasn't been confirmed and associated with a credit report, not that it doesn't exist. For it to not exist, you need to ensure that everyone else who uses social media doesn't know you exist.
We also need better tracking of men who make women pregnant! See, for a first child, she's going to go through things she's never experienced before. They need to learn the Gerber brand, need to learn what diapers are about, told what's current at Toys 'R Us (are their any competitors left?) and more.
Sorry, you just can't opt out of that one. If you don't want it online, it's going to land in your mailbox.
That's why I search for baby names, cribs and daycares every 9 months or so. Surprisingly, they've stopped sending me "special deals" by email and mailbox; I guess they figure that after every 9 months for 15 years but with 0 purchases except as gifts, I'm probably not their target market.
I should have checked the F box on those surveys come to think of it... that'd have confused them even more.
The data you put on the form has 0 value to them: it's what you purchase with the card, when, and where that they're after. They can probably figure out exactly who you are and where you live just from your purchase data.
This is why some companies will ONLY honour the actual card, and reject phone-generated codes, telling them your phone number, etc: they don't want your purchase data to get mixed up with someone else using the same tracking number.
Personally, I think they'd do better just to use a phone's MAC instead; that'd be more reliable for them than a shareable card, and the MAC would be the same across businesses for advanced data sharing opportunities.
Plus, I'd be able to randomly generate a new one whenever I wanted :)
I think you got your units mixed up: warm snot is a measure of temperature (can also be used as a measure of texture), not a measure of power.
Yes, but the question everyone's itching to have answered is:
How much warm snot to a hogshead?
Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition.
Which part? The constitution has a lot to say about land, but not much to say about airspace from what I've read, other than in how it relates to land or personal freedom.
This does raise a question though: if you commit a crime while in the air over New York, that's not NYPD jurisdiction -- it's federal jurisdiction and handled by the FAA. But the FAA doesn't have policing powers; they can only levy a fine. So does that mean if someone robs me while I'm in a helicopter over NYC, the FBI get involved?
OK: so that means they're the ones who control http://www.poweruptoys.com/ paper airplanes, as well as gliders, parachutes, kites and flying squirrels.
But then, the FAA is responsible for tall buildings as well (buildings that penetrate US Airspace unduly) and other tall structures -- they mandate blinking lights and radio beacons so that pilots can avoid the obstacles.
Basically, they're in charge of ensuring that objects don't run into each other in an unsafe manner. This looks like a case of someone flying into something in an unsafe manner. Flying within a certain distance (height or horizon) of a heavily populated area is also their ballpark. Anything flying indoors is not.
I'll repeat what I said: they're not calling for banning guns, they're calling for regulation. In other words, they're not saying "nobody can own a firearm" -- they're saying "only specially certified people can own this kind of firearm." Just like I can't go buy an earth mover and drive it on a public road, or buy an airplane and fly it wherever I want. As I pointed out, the big difference is that firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, unlike our "transportation rights" via specific means.
Talking about a blanket ban on guns and talking about restrictions/regulation are completely different things. Did you really only see that one sentence from my post? Your response makes you look like a member of one of those extreme right wing groups, instead of the logical person you actually (probably) are.
If you're not talking about gun bans, don't conflate banning guns with what's really happening -- call out the actual abuses and then people can have a logical debate on the issue instead of throwing more left and right-leaning FUD on the fire.
And making this into a partisan issue is silly: we all know that while certain groups of politicians pay lip service to one stance or another on private ownership of assault weapons (including firearms), it's the government as a whole who have been doing what they have been doing, and the implementations have been pushed by unelected lobbyists and carried out by unelected career government employees. Making this a Dem/Rep issue just ads yet another layer of distraction from the real issues: social treatment of firearms, firearm safety, and the right to overthrow government when it becomes too self-serving.
Seems to me there's a simpler solution to these: have the gun "safety" be a wrist tether with a pin. Part of arming the gun involves inserting the pin. A quick visual check will tell whether or not it is inserted.
No electronics, no hidden bits, just a simple tether like on exercise and water sports equipment. The tech has been in use for years, shouldn't be difficult to move to a gun.
If I were with the police, I sure wouldn't want that magazine safety, as you can't easily check and see if it is on or not. I also wouldn't want the proximity safety, as there are too many things that could go wrong (RF jammer, anyone?).
But a simple pin and tether mechanism ensures that the gun use is at least intentional. Key the pin to the specific gun for an extra layer of security (both ways -- you can't just jam something in the hole to release the safety, and you can't use just any gun if you've got the tether).
Any legislation enabled should at least allow for this kind of tech.
They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....
No, you see the left calling for tougher safety regulations for the construction, sale, and use of automobiles. Think mirrors, seat belts, ABS, airbags, driving impairment laws, etc.
You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.
Of course, one significant difference which people don't tend to get is that there's no constitutional right to drive an automobile, especially on public roadways.
In reality, the heartbeats had no place in OpenSSL; if you want a heartbeat, you can implement it on the next layer up the stack, and this should be enough to hold the connection open. In the few instances where a heartbeat has helped me, there was a better way to handle the situation (as it was usually required due to bad router configuration in the first place). Implementing transport connection quality monitoring code inside a transport encryption library just leads to stuff like heartbleed. LibreSSL is reimplementing it correctly.
And how do they propose determining the price for a projector, when a single unit can readily have a screen size ranging from 30 inches to 300 inches?
Easy: they charge the maximum the device is capable of (in this case, 300 inches).
A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99.
So, I hook my smartphone up to my 75 inch TV & save $2? I'll stick with unlimited streaming, thanks. MKV files as a fallback. I haven't yet, and don't intend to ever, purchased a DRM'd video. I buy non-DRM mp3s all the time now.
Indeed -- and how would this work for something like an AppleTV? It has no screen, so would they charge the max price? In that case, I can see a market for devices with tiny screens that demand high resolution video and just happen to be able to broadcast as well.
It's a key exchange -- the vendor presents the charge and the user presents the one-time encoded authentication token. Both of these are sent upstream to the authorization server, which then queries the merchant bank and cardholder bank to verify the token and the authorization request. They then send a signed response back down the line so that the card knows it was their issuer who authorized the request, the merchant bank knows the cardholder is good for the charge, and the merchant never sees anything at all identifiable.
This is how the rest of the world has done things for a decade. There is zero reason for a merchant to know anything other than that the customer is good for the credit, and that the banks will back the transaction. The rest of the transaction is done between banks, not people and merchants.
It still boggles my mind that a country that values anonymous cash so much would be so tied to a credit system that leaks personal information like a sieve, PCI DSS notwithstanding.
Square will have to do what PayPal Here does in territories with Chip and Pin, and that's replace their device with one that has a chip reader.
Of course, the PayPal Here reader with Chip and Pin is almost ten times the cost of the US PayPal Here swipe reader.
Well, it really depends. Without chip and pin, the vendor assumes all responsibility for chargebacks. It will be a decision for each square user as to whether it is more profitable to assume liability or pay for the more expensive reader. upgrade.
I think you're missing the point of the headline. It obviously is trying to communicate the fact that some Stanford bioengineers developed the Neuocore chip 9,000 times faster than the PC did.
Indeed... if it took them 15 years, then we'll be waiting another 134,075 years for the PC to develop something similar. Or is that become something similar?
5. Site is hosted on a compromised server in the first place -- fixing this by recompiling the server would alert the host admin.
Who will watch the watchers? That's easy -- private drones under the 25lb weight limit.
"Double Irish and a Dutch sandwich"
Errr goddamn my filthy mind, too much urban dictionary.
I thought we were talking about a coffee with a double shot of whiskey and a sandwich where I only had to pay for half....
I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
That would just result in a law being passed that somehow ends up with the government giving $0.01/year to all those people it thinks shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Anyone who is against net neutrality either (1) has no understanding of what it means, or (2) is being bankrolled by a corporate interest. I doubt that the FCC doesn't understand what net neutrality is, so that only leaves option (2).
Funny how net neutrality suddenly dies as soon as a former telecom lobbyist/CEO became the FCC chairman.
I'm against net neutrality, and have been ever since congress decided to change what "net neutrality" meant. I'm all for common carriers being treated as common carriers though, and for mail laws to apply to data packets (inspection of packets contents for the purpose of routing the packets is OK, not for the purpose of data mining or prioritizing the packets -- we've got headers for that; use them).