Superior, how? Superior as in just about anybody is able to easily find out about all your credit cards, and plenty of purchase details? Is that the kinds of "superior" you were talking about?
I feel you are assuming an air of stupidity to make a point. Perhaps you would like to make your explicitly rather than come at it sideways? I remind you that this is a debate about the merits of debit cards versus credit cards. References to other payment methods would be more than just stupid.
I apologize. I didn't read Todd Knar's entire post. You were addressing his point about hotels, and what you wrote was a reasonable response to that. But being at the mercy of a customer service person feelings about my attitude when I am under a lot of stress is not appealing.
To my knowledge the laws that protect consumers against fraudulent credit card transactions don't apply to debit cards.
In recent years, things have gotten better for debit card holders, you are right that it used to be all promises. Now there are some federal regulations, but they still aren't anywhere near as strong as the federal laws protecting credit card holders.
Your response is orthogonal to the question. Your example is not that of bounced checks, it is of trying to use a debit card at point of sale when the balance was low.
It is an entirely different thing to write a check and then have it bounce 3 days later. There are all kinds of fees and penalties that get assessed when that happens, some of which can come from the company you wrote the check to, the bank never even sees the penalty. There are even non-monetary penalties like your landlord, or your utility company reporting the bounced check to the credit agencies.
There really is only one reason to ever use a debit card - your credit is so bad that you can't actually get a credit card. In all other ways credit cards are the superior tool.
The paranoid conflate those two into this all-seeing, all-encompassing "They're watching everybody all the time."
The realists know that because of the inexorable march of technology the two are converging. For example, automatic license plate readers which didn't exist when license plates were made a legal requirement are now so widespread that nearly every repoman has one on his dashboard feeding a centralized and permanent database.
LEDs may be a good solution, but I've yet to find ones that give out enough red tones.
You probably want high CRI bulbs for more accurate reds. Good for kitchens (for working with meat) and bathrooms (for skin tones). Also, for the kitchen you want a 4000K color temp, that is a little more "blue" then people are used to, but any time you see a professional lit kitchen in a magazine or a cooking show they are using 4000K lights.
The latest TW series from CREE have very high CRI (93 out of a max 100) they do it by sacrificing a little bit of efficiency.
While I'd like to switch over to more LEDs, every LED bulb I have purchased so far has had manufacturer instructions that they should NOT be mounted in an enclosed fixture (such as a ceiling dome).
The latest 40w and 60w equivalents from CREE are fine in an enclosed fixture as long as there are no incandescents in there with them.
Our problem is that the politicians have figured out how to go beyond that level in furthering their self-interest and no longer engage in that internal war the founders envisioned, to our deep detriment.
Political parties are the means by which they subvert the checks-and-balances inherent in the separation of powers design of our government. Party loyalty crosses each branch of the government so that they aren't in opposition to each other any more.
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
I currently have my choice of Comcast or Verizon FIOS. There's a number of areas in eastern MA where this is the case, probably other locations too.
You are technically correct, but not usefully correct. I lived in a boston suburb with a similar choice (some towns even have 3 choices there, comcast, verizon and RCN). But for the vast majority of the population there is only one choice.
What hatred? Did either of these people advocate violence or cruelty?
Violence and cruelty are not the only forms of hatred. The fact that you are already trying to reframe the issue into something more narrow suggests you are cognizant of the error of your ways but don't wish to acknowledge them.
He said: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Donâ(TM)t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they wonâ(TM)t inherit the kingdom of God. Donâ(TM)t deceive yourself. Itâ(TM)s not right."
He's clearing equating homosexuality with bestiality and fraud among others.
Worse than that, security officers were now extremely worried that someone with complete knowledge of the work going on at GCHQ was now labelled a security risk.
The irony is palpable. They treat him like shit and then they are worried he's going to be mad at them for it.
So you proved that you can run your own RSA server without requiring external validation from RSA, but you can't prove that their authentication server didn't try to send authentication details back to RSA or the NSA.
Actually I can. We had a source-code license for everything but a very tiny binary blob that made no system calls. There was no phone-home code in the server..
You probably should come to grips with the fact that you are tolerant of people's politically incorrect statements, unless they come from someone who you dislike
You seem to be one of those people who have confused form for content. I'm tolerant of "politically incorrect" statements that don't promote hatred. It isn't bigotted to talk about bigotry.
Racism = hatred of someone because of their ethnicity or color of their skin.
I disagree. Ask any asian person in the US what they think about the stereotype of being math whizzes. Racism is stereotyping based on race.
On the other hand, and maybe what you are trying to get at, is that there is a big difference between stereotyping (making assumptions) and talking about racial issues. It is can't racist to acknowledge that racism exists.
Her apology pretty much says it right there: "a needless and careless tweet". If it was "darkly ironic" etc etc it wouldn't be "needless and careless".
It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.
Then again, so is not creating PR disasters for her employer
I agree, she demonstrated poor suitability for her job regardless of her intentions.
I find it hard to believe this was anything deep and meaningful with a history like this:
You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet....
Obviously I disagree. I look at her apology as evidence - it is a complete apology. Not one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" passive-aggressive non-apologies that latent assholes and corporations use to defend their own wrong-headedness. It is an apology entirely consistent with my interpretation of the original tweet.
"Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand."
While that case could be made, after looking at some of her other tweets, that are just as offensive, I am not so sure if her works meant anything other than what was intended.
Yeah, I read them, and I didn't get that impression from them. In one she talks about a big stinky german guy sitting near her on an airplane. Some people have taken that as being anti-german. I took it as the guy probably talking loudly with a german accent so it was an obviously identifiable characteristic. The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
I thought it was intended to be darkly ironic, reflecting an awareness of the privileges that the poor in africa don't have. It was an ugly truth, but censoring her for saying it doesn't help anyone except people who would rather pretend that aids in africa isn't a problem that lines up with race and economic status. She wasn't saying that aids is a disease for black people, she was saying that too many black people don't have access to the resources to protect themselves.
Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.
Defending something for which you have no part in its success is silly to me. Whether it be sports or being a Windows fanboy, I just don't get it. The blind patriotism some people have is also baffling
(A) The people most likely to do that are the ones who have the least personal accomplishments so they outsource their pride to whatever groups they can manage to identify with. It is a sign of deep insecurity.
(B) This NYT article has nothing to do with that. It is about identifying where you grew up or otherwise lived for a long period of your life based on your word and pronunciation choices.
Instead, they seeded them. In this way you had to rely on RSA to authenticate the tokens for you, instead of let you run your own server. So, this immediately raises several red flags for a security aware person: Denial of Service == All your cards stop authenticating at RSA's whim.
I have personal experience implementing a SecureID based system and I can say that is not true.
Yes, RSA seeds the tokens. No there is no external reliance on RSA to validate them in the field. You do have to run their authentication server, but it does not phone home at all. RSA is not an active participant in each authentication, they can't stop valid tokens from continuing to work. I can say this categorically because I worked with a SecureID system on an air-gapped network. It was physically impossible to phone home to RSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Superior, how? Superior as in just about anybody is able to easily find out about all your credit cards, and plenty of purchase details? Is that the kinds of "superior" you were talking about?
I feel you are assuming an air of stupidity to make a point. Perhaps you would like to make your explicitly rather than come at it sideways? I remind you that this is a debate about the merits of debit cards versus credit cards. References to other payment methods would be more than just stupid.
I apologize. I didn't read Todd Knar's entire post. You were addressing his point about hotels, and what you wrote was a reasonable response to that. But being at the mercy of a customer service person feelings about my attitude when I am under a lot of stress is not appealing.
To my knowledge the laws that protect consumers against fraudulent credit card transactions don't apply to debit cards.
In recent years, things have gotten better for debit card holders, you are right that it used to be all promises. Now there are some federal regulations, but they still aren't anywhere near as strong as the federal laws protecting credit card holders.
http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnfall09/debit_vs_credit.html
Your response is orthogonal to the question. Your example is not that of bounced checks, it is of trying to use a debit card at point of sale when the balance was low.
It is an entirely different thing to write a check and then have it bounce 3 days later. There are all kinds of fees and penalties that get assessed when that happens, some of which can come from the company you wrote the check to, the bank never even sees the penalty. There are even non-monetary penalties like your landlord, or your utility company reporting the bounced check to the credit agencies.
There really is only one reason to ever use a debit card - your credit is so bad that you can't actually get a credit card. In all other ways credit cards are the superior tool.
The paranoid conflate those two into this all-seeing, all-encompassing "They're watching everybody all the time."
The realists know that because of the inexorable march of technology the two are converging. For example, automatic license plate readers which didn't exist when license plates were made a legal requirement are now so widespread that nearly every repoman has one on his dashboard feeding a centralized and permanent database.
Wow, an outdated statement on a website!!
Clearly that supersedes the label on the package.
LEDs may be a good solution, but I've yet to find ones that give out enough red tones.
You probably want high CRI bulbs for more accurate reds. Good for kitchens (for working with meat) and bathrooms (for skin tones). Also, for the kitchen you want a 4000K color temp, that is a little more "blue" then people are used to, but any time you see a professional lit kitchen in a magazine or a cooking show they are using 4000K lights.
The latest TW series from CREE have very high CRI (93 out of a max 100) they do it by sacrificing a little bit of efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_CRI_LED_Lighting
While I'd like to switch over to more LEDs, every LED bulb I have purchased so far has had manufacturer instructions that they should NOT be mounted in an enclosed fixture (such as a ceiling dome).
The latest 40w and 60w equivalents from CREE are fine in an enclosed fixture as long as there are no incandescents in there with them.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?374881-40w-led-s-inside-a-ceiling-fixture
Our problem is that the politicians have figured out how to go beyond that level in furthering their self-interest and no longer engage in that internal war the founders envisioned, to our deep detriment.
Political parties are the means by which they subvert the checks-and-balances inherent in the separation of powers design of our government. Party loyalty crosses each branch of the government so that they aren't in opposition to each other any more.
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
I currently have my choice of Comcast or Verizon FIOS. There's a number of areas in eastern MA where this is the case, probably other locations too.
You are technically correct, but not usefully correct. I lived in a boston suburb with a similar choice (some towns even have 3 choices there, comcast, verizon and RCN). But for the vast majority of the population there is only one choice.
Time Warner is also a content maker.
No, that is a completely different company. They were spun-off in 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-warner_cable
What hatred? Did either of these people advocate violence or cruelty?
Violence and cruelty are not the only forms of hatred. The fact that you are already trying to reframe the issue into something more narrow suggests you are cognizant of the error of your ways but don't wish to acknowledge them.
He said: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Donâ(TM)t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they wonâ(TM)t inherit the kingdom of God. Donâ(TM)t deceive yourself. Itâ(TM)s not right."
He's clearing equating homosexuality with bestiality and fraud among others.
And nothing has changed. What a waste of time. Enjoy your stay, comrade.
It took years for this shit to become entrenched, it is going to take at least as long to unwind it.
Worse than that, security officers were now extremely worried that someone with complete knowledge of the work going on at GCHQ was now labelled a security risk.
The irony is palpable. They treat him like shit and then they are worried he's going to be mad at them for it.
So you proved that you can run your own RSA server without requiring external validation from RSA, but you can't prove that their authentication server didn't try to send authentication details back to RSA or the NSA.
Actually I can. We had a source-code license for everything but a very tiny binary blob that made no system calls. There was no phone-home code in the server..
You probably should come to grips with the fact that you are tolerant of people's politically incorrect statements, unless they come from someone who you dislike
You seem to be one of those people who have confused form for content. I'm tolerant of "politically incorrect" statements that don't promote hatred. It isn't bigotted to talk about bigotry.
Racism = hatred of someone because of their ethnicity or color of their skin.
I disagree. Ask any asian person in the US what they think about the stereotype of being math whizzes. Racism is stereotyping based on race.
On the other hand, and maybe what you are trying to get at, is that there is a big difference between stereotyping (making assumptions) and talking about racial issues. It is can't racist to acknowledge that racism exists.
Her apology pretty much says it right there: "a needless and careless tweet". If it was "darkly ironic" etc etc it wouldn't be "needless and careless".
It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.
Then again, so is not creating PR disasters for her employer
I agree, she demonstrated poor suitability for her job regardless of her intentions.
I find it hard to believe this was anything deep and meaningful with a history like this:
Already addressed in my other post.
You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet ....
Obviously I disagree. I look at her apology as evidence - it is a complete apology. Not one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" passive-aggressive non-apologies that latent assholes and corporations use to defend their own wrong-headedness. It is an apology entirely consistent with my interpretation of the original tweet.
"Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand."
While that case could be made, after looking at some of her other tweets, that are just as offensive, I am not so sure if her works meant anything other than what was intended.
Yeah, I read them, and I didn't get that impression from them. In one she talks about a big stinky german guy sitting near her on an airplane. Some people have taken that as being anti-german. I took it as the guy probably talking loudly with a german accent so it was an obviously identifiable characteristic. The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.
For those who didn't RTFA, her tweet said:
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
I thought it was intended to be darkly ironic, reflecting an awareness of the privileges that the poor in africa don't have. It was an ugly truth, but censoring her for saying it doesn't help anyone except people who would rather pretend that aids in africa isn't a problem that lines up with race and economic status. She wasn't saying that aids is a disease for black people, she was saying that too many black people don't have access to the resources to protect themselves.
Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.
Defending something for which you have no part in its success is silly to me. Whether it be sports or being a Windows fanboy, I just don't get it. The blind patriotism some people have is also baffling
(A) The people most likely to do that are the ones who have the least personal accomplishments so they outsource their pride to whatever groups they can manage to identify with. It is a sign of deep insecurity.
(B) This NYT article has nothing to do with that. It is about identifying where you grew up or otherwise lived for a long period of your life based on your word and pronunciation choices.
Not to mention that most organizations use pin+token as auth codes; therefor, whiel you can get the token you don't have the user selected pin.
That is correct. However, if you can dupe the physical token you are half-way through the 2-factors of security.
Instead, they seeded them. In this way you had to rely on RSA to authenticate the tokens for you, instead of let you run your own server. So, this immediately raises several red flags for a security aware person: Denial of Service == All your cards stop authenticating at RSA's whim.
I have personal experience implementing a SecureID based system and I can say that is not true.
Yes, RSA seeds the tokens. No there is no external reliance on RSA to validate them in the field. You do have to run their authentication server, but it does not phone home at all. RSA is not an active participant in each authentication, they can't stop valid tokens from continuing to work. I can say this categorically because I worked with a SecureID system on an air-gapped network. It was physically impossible to phone home to RSA.
So, to repeat the question of the anon coward, what penalties would they be seeking?
It's a contract, they can specify whatever penalties they want. They can justify them by inflated costs to digitize and loss of potential sales.