Study the OWASP top-ten & you might get an inkling *why* IT would want this. It's to plug into automated scanning tools that, among other things, try documented hacks for privilege escalation. The best way to accomplish that is to start with a normal user account.
Amen. Did anyone read the interview about how they went about the monitor design for the original OLPC? That alone was a testament to what good engineering with a goal can accomplish.
[... looks for link... ]
pfft, can't find it. Look it up though, it's well worth it.
I find it interesting that we're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm. Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate, not just the makers of soda cans & computers?
Jesus had prodigious beard, an unkempt mane of hair, walked around in sandals in all weather, and saw himself as a man with divine powers who was put on the earth to show people "the way".
I was recently promoted. There was no hard number attached to the promotion immediately, so when I met with my manager & the VP to discuss my new responsibilities I took the opportunity to put a number out there. A week later when the number was actually delivered to me it was more than 15% higher than the one I had suggested. My manager explained that they didn't want to reduce my salary just because I had misread the situation.
So, yes; within certain tolerances they will pay you only what they have to pay you to keep you as long as they need you. What you have to understand is that while this is just business it isn't always inhuman.
You have to think of yourself at all times as a single employee business who's interested in maintaining a relationship with a larger business to mutual benefit. When it ceases to be mutually beneficial then someone will end or change the relationship.
Sometimes I wonder if companies that create security software aren't sometimes guilty of either creating or funding the creation of viruses, trojans, worms, &c. simply to justify their own existence.
I've got a business process patent that I think Microsoft should be aware of: "A specific process and procedure for patenting pre-existing technology in order to build a patent portfolio which can be leveraged using the court system to gain substantive competitive advantage."
Exactly. Though, the necessity of being excused from work frequently for court appearances as a defendant charged with inappropriate inter-species sex act *might* engender some concern on the part of the employer.
We should be able [to] see what our police are doing and what our congresspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us.
This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us. Also, our need to 'see what [they] are doing' does not necessarily extend to their personal life, in so far as their personal life does not affect their role as a government agent.
That's not necessarily true. There are graceful ways to deprecate commonly used design elements, even those specific to IE (read: hacks). It's been my experience that once someone says, "ok, this still works but it's going away" developers shun it like the plague for anything in active development, and rightly so.
... is this: I read adds on slashdot. For the very simple reason that i believe that, while you may be relatively ad agnostic (a good thing), the kinds of companies interested in advertising to a community like this are the kinds of companies that i just might be interested in. I'm much more likely to click on an ad on a slashdot page than i am on a google results page any day, and that's because the community that has been established around this site dictates a certain amount of honesty, legitimacy, and decorum that i do not see on other news sites, or websites.
That is because of your editorial independence. So the day slashdot shills anything is the day slashdot dies. The corporatistas may not know it, but Rob Malda is the difference between the profitable business known as slashdot and no business at all.
You may one day leave, and that's fine. Good even, new vision invigorates a company. Your most important task is to be instrumental in choosing who will succeed you. It's good enough feudalism, it's good enough for slashdot:)
If i don't know what i am talking about, i ask you to educate me. On what do i base my claims? Give me a law, a statue, case law, anything on which to base my claim against the person who used my social security number to open a credit account that was closed when he was arrested.
If you can cite that example, then we can discuss it's strengths and shortcomings. If you cannot cite such an example, then you have incorrectly (repeatedly, rudely) told me that i don't know what I'm talking about.
You're right. There are laws on the books. But they don't cover what these cover.
You can't take the person who used your social security number to open a credit account to civil court. There are no actual damages because the credit companies don't make you pay those charges. If there's no actual damage, there's no other damages because legally they all presuppose actual damages.
There's the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, FCRA, and the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence act. Gramm-Leach-Bliley sets the onus on financial institutions to protect your information. FCRA just sets standards for the collection, storage, and reporting of credit information. ITAD serves to criminalize identity theft and the activities that lead up to it (fraudulent acquisition of personal credit information), but provides no civil liberties.
There are a few state statutes that provide remedy to take the perpetrator to civil court (Missouri, others i'm sure), but federal laws only serve to make the bank liable in cases of negligence. Given that this is clearly an interstate issue, a federal issue, we need laws that make the criminal liable for actual damages as well as punitive and pain & suffering on the federal level.
Just because it's against the law doesn't mean you can sue, especially when according to the letter of the law you are not the victim, the bank is.
Also, tepples, you're right; it should be proportional. But there's no law that establishes that metric. Furthermore, the actual amount isn't described by "proportional".
In other words, Let's say i had intended to borrow 5,000 and now i have to do so at %18 instead of %8. So the difference is $500. But what if i needed a home loan? The difference might be thousands. How would you establish the actual amount? As there's no way to perform that calculation, there's no way to recover those damages.
I agree that there should be, and that's precisely why we need laws to make the identity thief liable not only to the financial institution, but to the person used someones identity fraudulently.
Right, but on what grounds? The point here is that when there's no law you look at precedent, and when there's no precedent? You either give up, make a law, or set precedent. Clearly setting a precedent by winning a notable case has been impossible, largely because the largest part of the damages are by default not tangible.
What is a good credit score even worth? Did the person take money from you? Nothing, and No, then what do you sue for? Sure, take them to civil court, but what's your argument? This person damaged me. How? Financially. What's the amount of the damage?
I appreciate that you are willing to think about these issues, i think that's important. However, you are entirely too smug for someone who is wrong.
Nothing is wrong with those laws; they're good laws that are obviously needed. But they only criminalize the identity theft. What they don't do is give the victims of identity theft recourse to recover damages from the responsible party, or any party for that matter.
In other words, they attempt to establish a framework by which a person victimized can recover damages from the person who has stolen their personal information and used it illegally, which is something beyond sentencing the convicted person.
Part of the problem is with our perception of probability. We see it mathematically, but we still expect cause and effect rather than randomosity. Most users will say things like "why would someone monitor me," not realizing that there's usually no direct causal relation between who they are and interest others might have in their information, and the question is better put, "how probable is it that someone like me might be monitored."
In other words, we feel relatively safe in a crowd. We are completely visible, but because we cannot see why someone would single us out as unique, we feel obfuscated. All the while not realizing that it's more opportunity than it is causality.
This is why we feel safe sharing information on websites like myspace, or using our credit cards over insecure wireless connections, because we believe that because everyone else is engaging in this fundamentally insecure behavior, we have safety in numbers. No one will read our blog for information about our identity, no one will try to use our amazon account to buy electronics.
But they will, with a probabilistically determined frequency.
A lot of well meaning people might think that the parent is flaimbait... allow me to explain why it's not.
There's a lot of us who wonder, basically, "what's next". What's the next great technology. Will it be cool or will it be vaporware. But the more immediate question is "when's next", because the next great technology has already been discovered in the R&D Labs out there, and the companies that have this technology are not bringing it to market because they have enourmously long pipelines. They work to make it as cheap, as well suited to mass production, as marketable as possible. In a word, they make sure, dead sure, and sure again that it's consumer ready.
But who's defining consumer ready? The average, the great pale middle. The people that know vaguely what the internet is, but not how it works. The people who know that their computer can print pictures from their digital camera, but who ask their kids to set it up for them. The people who have dvd players that flash 12:00.
So, until we bring the middle ground higher, technology companies are going to keep it slow, selling as much of each iteration as they can before moving on to the next. In short, we either keep these people away from anything with an led or teach them. Or wait until they die.
Slashdot Mirror
Study the OWASP top-ten & you might get an inkling *why* IT would want this. It's to plug into automated scanning tools that, among other things, try documented hacks for privilege escalation. The best way to accomplish that is to start with a normal user account.
Amen. Did anyone read the interview about how they went about the monitor design for the original OLPC? That alone was a testament to what good engineering with a goal can accomplish.
[ ... looks for link ... ]
pfft, can't find it. Look it up though, it's well worth it.
I find it interesting that we're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm. Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate, not just the makers of soda cans & computers?
And you, in turn, are confusing stoners & homeless guys as Richard Stallman
(My apologies to RMS ... when the humor is just there, right in front of you ... what can you do?)
Jesus had prodigious beard, an unkempt mane of hair, walked around in sandals in all weather, and saw himself as a man with divine powers who was put on the earth to show people "the way".
Jesus was clearly, clearly, a nerd.
I was recently promoted. There was no hard number attached to the promotion immediately, so when I met with my manager & the VP to discuss my new responsibilities I took the opportunity to put a number out there. A week later when the number was actually delivered to me it was more than 15% higher than the one I had suggested. My manager explained that they didn't want to reduce my salary just because I had misread the situation.
So, yes; within certain tolerances they will pay you only what they have to pay you to keep you as long as they need you. What you have to understand is that while this is just business it isn't always inhuman.
You have to think of yourself at all times as a single employee business who's interested in maintaining a relationship with a larger business to mutual benefit. When it ceases to be mutually beneficial then someone will end or change the relationship.
Sometimes I wonder if companies that create security software aren't sometimes guilty of either creating or funding the creation of viruses, trojans, worms, &c. simply to justify their own existence.
Is that cynical?
When someone sees an image of the Virgin Mary burned into their face from the radiation.
I've got a business process patent that I think Microsoft should be aware of: "A specific process and procedure for patenting pre-existing technology in order to build a patent portfolio which can be leveraged using the court system to gain substantive competitive advantage."
...
All your GPU are belong to Lucid!
(sorry guys)
Exactly. Though, the necessity of being excused from work frequently for court appearances as a defendant charged with inappropriate inter-species sex act *might* engender some concern on the part of the employer.
:)
Just something to keep in mind.
We should be able [to] see what our police are doing and what our congresspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us.
This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us. Also, our need to 'see what [they] are doing' does not necessarily extend to their personal life, in so far as their personal life does not affect their role as a government agent.
That's true; but then, are you alive and doing science ... on Mars!
Good luck with that.
That's not necessarily true. There are graceful ways to deprecate commonly used design elements, even those specific to IE (read: hacks). It's been my experience that once someone says, "ok, this still works but it's going away" developers shun it like the plague for anything in active development, and rightly so.
... is this: I read adds on slashdot. For the very simple reason that i believe that, while you may be relatively ad agnostic (a good thing), the kinds of companies interested in advertising to a community like this are the kinds of companies that i just might be interested in. I'm much more likely to click on an ad on a slashdot page than i am on a google results page any day, and that's because the community that has been established around this site dictates a certain amount of honesty, legitimacy, and decorum that i do not see on other news sites, or websites.
That is because of your editorial independence. So the day slashdot shills anything is the day slashdot dies. The corporatistas may not know it, but Rob Malda is the difference between the profitable business known as slashdot and no business at all.
You may one day leave, and that's fine. Good even, new vision invigorates a company. Your most important task is to be instrumental in choosing who will succeed you. It's good enough feudalism, it's good enough for slashdot:)
typo. statue should have been statute. my apologies.
If i don't know what i am talking about, i ask you to educate me. On what do i base my claims? Give me a law, a statue, case law, anything on which to base my claim against the person who used my social security number to open a credit account that was closed when he was arrested.
If you can cite that example, then we can discuss it's strengths and shortcomings. If you cannot cite such an example, then you have incorrectly (repeatedly, rudely) told me that i don't know what I'm talking about.
You're right. There are laws on the books. But they don't cover what these cover.
You can't take the person who used your social security number to open a credit account to civil court. There are no actual damages because the credit companies don't make you pay those charges. If there's no actual damage, there's no other damages because legally they all presuppose actual damages.
There's the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, FCRA, and the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence act. Gramm-Leach-Bliley sets the onus on financial institutions to protect your information. FCRA just sets standards for the collection, storage, and reporting of credit information. ITAD serves to criminalize identity theft and the activities that lead up to it (fraudulent acquisition of personal credit information), but provides no civil liberties.
There are a few state statutes that provide remedy to take the perpetrator to civil court (Missouri, others i'm sure), but federal laws only serve to make the bank liable in cases of negligence. Given that this is clearly an interstate issue, a federal issue, we need laws that make the criminal liable for actual damages as well as punitive and pain & suffering on the federal level.
Just because it's against the law doesn't mean you can sue, especially when according to the letter of the law you are not the victim, the bank is.
Also, tepples, you're right; it should be proportional. But there's no law that establishes that metric. Furthermore, the actual amount isn't described by "proportional".
In other words, Let's say i had intended to borrow 5,000 and now i have to do so at %18 instead of %8. So the difference is $500. But what if i needed a home loan? The difference might be thousands. How would you establish the actual amount? As there's no way to perform that calculation, there's no way to recover those damages.
I agree that there should be, and that's precisely why we need laws to make the identity thief liable not only to the financial institution, but to the person used someones identity fraudulently.
Right, but on what grounds? The point here is that when there's no law you look at precedent, and when there's no precedent? You either give up, make a law, or set precedent. Clearly setting a precedent by winning a notable case has been impossible, largely because the largest part of the damages are by default not tangible.
What is a good credit score even worth? Did the person take money from you? Nothing, and No, then what do you sue for? Sure, take them to civil court, but what's your argument? This person damaged me. How? Financially. What's the amount of the damage?
I appreciate that you are willing to think about these issues, i think that's important. However, you are entirely too smug for someone who is wrong.
Nothing is wrong with those laws; they're good laws that are obviously needed. But they only criminalize the identity theft. What they don't do is give the victims of identity theft recourse to recover damages from the responsible party, or any party for that matter.
In other words, they attempt to establish a framework by which a person victimized can recover damages from the person who has stolen their personal information and used it illegally, which is something beyond sentencing the convicted person.
Part of the problem is with our perception of probability. We see it mathematically, but we still expect cause and effect rather than randomosity. Most users will say things like "why would someone monitor me," not realizing that there's usually no direct causal relation between who they are and interest others might have in their information, and the question is better put, "how probable is it that someone like me might be monitored."
In other words, we feel relatively safe in a crowd. We are completely visible, but because we cannot see why someone would single us out as unique, we feel obfuscated. All the while not realizing that it's more opportunity than it is causality.
This is why we feel safe sharing information on websites like myspace, or using our credit cards over insecure wireless connections, because we believe that because everyone else is engaging in this fundamentally insecure behavior, we have safety in numbers. No one will read our blog for information about our identity, no one will try to use our amazon account to buy electronics.
But they will, with a probabilistically determined frequency.
how can a first post be modded as redundant?
hmm... how indeed.
Mah-Jick?
I do not know what this "Magic" you speak of is, but does it relate to Curved Lorentzian Manifolds?
i didn't know a show could have cancles? perhaps you meant 'cancelled' ?
A lot of well meaning people might think that the parent is flaimbait ... allow me to explain why it's not.
There's a lot of us who wonder, basically, "what's next". What's the next great technology. Will it be cool or will it be vaporware. But the more immediate question is "when's next", because the next great technology has already been discovered in the R&D Labs out there, and the companies that have this technology are not bringing it to market because they have enourmously long pipelines. They work to make it as cheap, as well suited to mass production, as marketable as possible. In a word, they make sure, dead sure, and sure again that it's consumer ready.
But who's defining consumer ready? The average, the great pale middle. The people that know vaguely what the internet is, but not how it works. The people who know that their computer can print pictures from their digital camera, but who ask their kids to set it up for them. The people who have dvd players that flash 12:00.
So, until we bring the middle ground higher, technology companies are going to keep it slow, selling as much of each iteration as they can before moving on to the next. In short, we either keep these people away from anything with an led or teach them. Or wait until they die.