Everyone, if the challenge was to go back to the caveman days and find metal ore, when it was practically on the surface, and no one had exploited the "low hanging fruit" yet.
Spear phishing is phishing where you exploit specific information about the target to make your messages seem more trustworthy. For example, phishing would just be,
"Hello John_Doe@yahoo.com, it appears you have some bank activity awaiting confirmation, please click on this flaky URL..."
Spear phishing would be,
"Dear Mr. John H. Doe,
Your account at Citibank [Doe actually has an account there] shows a rejected transaction for your purchase at 6:30 pm at Walmart on Tuesday, the 5th. [Doe actually made a purchase there and then.] Please confirm its authenticity by clicking this link..."
Then again, the others seem to be saying that the difference is in *who* you target, rather than the inside information your message has that makes it more plausible. So... go fig.
I'm assuming you're talking about welfare. If so, have you checked your facts recently?
Your link confirms what the GP was saying. "Social programs" would reasonably refer to education (4%), health care (24%), welfare (13%), and possibly pensions (22%), which probably means social security. All together, that's 63%, vs the 25% it shows for defense.
I agree it's an exaggeration to use the term "pales in comparison", but it is significantly less. You may certainly support this level of social spending, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that defense is significantly less than social spending.
Plus, "defense" includes a lot of genuinely forward-looking investments, like DARPA, while social spending is generally more present-oriented, supporting the GP's broader point about investing in the future.
I already have a sensor that enables 3D mapping of rainforests -- and non-rainforests as well! It's called my fucking visual system. Eye + brain for interpretation of two 2D lens images.
You don't have to sell them to profit-maximizing corporations. Sell them to environmental groups, and with a deed restriction that prevents (heavy) commercial development. They'll bid less (because they won't try to run it at a profit), but it'll go off the books and give the Feds some much needed windfall and a reduction in maintenance costs.
I'm not a homeowner, I don't pay property taxes, and I've had catastrophic things happen in my life. It's just that I recognize that there are lifestyle issues that have to be addressed when helping the poor, and freebies like Section 8 (or its worse predecessors) don't fix those problems but rather, lets them cascade to others and promotes continued poor lifestyle choices.
I like energy research, plus (non-toll) roads and bridges. Agreed there.
However:
Currently-federal parks can go private.
Local public schools can do the job without federal "assistance". The feds just take money and give it to schools. Um, if a state needs more money for its schools, they can raise it themselves, that's where most of the money comes from. There was a department of education for only a fraction of the history of public schools.
No more low income housing? GREAT! Section 8ers get into the program as a result of horrible lifestyle choices and ruin any neighborhood that will let them in. People who can't afford those places should move to where they *can* afford, rather than jumping the queue in front of people willing to pay for those spots. There is *always* affordable housing if you're willing to look; federal assistance just crowds out the prime spots.
I think you're significantly overestimating the damage from these changes. But I agree about the two things above, plus NOAA. And I mostly agree with Ron Paul, but ffs, cut the useless departments first, not f***ing NOAA!
It's ok to do that but at some point if they are doing similar work to the regular employees with similar experience and time with the company then the company is generally obligated to give them similar compensation.
That's exactly what they do here (the same work as directs), and the issue was discrimination law, not compensation.
Are you actually familiar with the intricacies of this topic, or are you just guessing?
Holy crap! You're saying that there's a voicechat app for the iPhone now? That interfaces with the existing telephone infrastructure? And let's you use your real telephone # on it? What's it called?
Interesting. I know a lot of employees where I work (aerospace engineering) that are classified as contractors, and indeed are sent there via a contracting agency (that they display on the employee badge), and yet they work there full time, for pretty long (indefinite) periods. And they're exempt from all the politically correct training that directs have to go through.
Seems it's quite easy to count someone as a contractor.
Since an actor is essentially a Contractor and not an employee, they are hired on the merits of their qualifications
So what exactly stops all the other employers out there from just classifying their employees as "contractors" and thereby ignore the entire labyrinthine system of employment law?
You obviously have expertise in this area, but I don't see how that's a relevant comparison. My suggestion was for the device to siphon off glucose your body would normally pass through its regular metabolic channels (and thus store as fat); DNP had numerous effects in addition to simply consuming energy. A device that coverts it into electricity could just turn the glucose into harmless smaller compounds like water and CO2.
There may be a problem I'm missing, but your argument seems to be "liposuction doesn't work because diet pills f*** you up". Huh?
It seems like the usage of your body's energy is a feature, not just a cost. Would it be possible to have some device use as much energy from your body as possible so as to keep you from getting fat? And for a triple-play, how about if that energy could also be stored or transmitted for consumer use, displacing some of your expenditures on electricity?
Obviously, by that point the logistics would be a major issue, but it would be awesome if something could tackle the problems of implant powering, obesity, and energy all at once.
Not when they have to comply with FCC rules (one of its few reasonable ones) that require such a device to accept all interference from higher-ranked EM transmitters, even if it means degradation of performance. (Check the notice on any short-range EM transmitter device you have -- anything blue-tooth and/or wi-fi only should have it.)
Not a dig on FCC rules, this is actually a reasonable one. If you want to get your wireless brakes upped in communication priority (probably requiring you to own a piece of the spectrum just so you can reject interference and guarantee the same reliablility that comes from cheap bike parts) and spend all the money and hassle it would take... more power to ya!
We already long had short-range wireless devices we can use, it's just that they don't have catastrophic effects if the signal is interrupted for a millisecond.
You know what would be even cooler? If Anonymous found a polynominal-time method of factoring large semi-primes, thereby breaking the RSA cryptosystem, and published the algorithm!
Now *that* would cause mayhem, and be perfectly legal too!
Right, except that would fragment the DNS infrastructure and break about 15 RFCs... not to mention the entire concept of a URL, which is supposed to mean UNIVERSAL Resource Locator.
That's "Universal" as in, you won't have to say, "oh, yeah man, just go to example.com... on MicroDNS, not QuicknetDNS."
I'm not worried about the soldiers being "hear". I'm worried about the soldiers being "do". More specifically, about the soldiers being "kill their country's citizens". Or about the soldies being "answer only to the whims of the leader".
"Hear"? No, the I'm fine with the soldiers being that all they want!
Wow, thanks for all that extensive effort you spent to prove your controversial thesis that an agency that can tax peter to pay you can provide a better value than an enterprise that has to be self-sustaining.
I totally never would have guessed that I'd be able to make a profit while giving stuff away, if I had the power to tax. Just blows my fucking mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean (+ 1 (/ 1 (sin (/ Pi 5) ) ) ).
Some of us prefer Lisp notation, ya know.
How many of us will know to find metal ore
Everyone, if the challenge was to go back to the caveman days and find metal ore, when it was practically on the surface, and no one had exploited the "low hanging fruit" yet.
Spear phishing is phishing where you exploit specific information about the target to make your messages seem more trustworthy. For example, phishing would just be,
"Hello John_Doe@yahoo.com, it appears you have some bank activity awaiting confirmation, please click on this flaky URL ..."
Spear phishing would be,
"Dear Mr. John H. Doe,
Your account at Citibank [Doe actually has an account there] shows a rejected transaction for your purchase at 6:30 pm at Walmart on Tuesday, the 5th. [Doe actually made a purchase there and then.] Please confirm its authenticity by clicking this link ..."
Then again, the others seem to be saying that the difference is in *who* you target, rather than the inside information your message has that makes it more plausible. So ... go fig.
I'm assuming you're talking about welfare. If so, have you checked your facts recently?
Your link confirms what the GP was saying. "Social programs" would reasonably refer to education (4%), health care (24%), welfare (13%), and possibly pensions (22%), which probably means social security. All together, that's 63%, vs the 25% it shows for defense.
I agree it's an exaggeration to use the term "pales in comparison", but it is significantly less. You may certainly support this level of social spending, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that defense is significantly less than social spending.
Plus, "defense" includes a lot of genuinely forward-looking investments, like DARPA, while social spending is generally more present-oriented, supporting the GP's broader point about investing in the future.
I already have a sensor that enables 3D mapping of rainforests -- and non-rainforests as well! It's called my fucking visual system. Eye + brain for interpretation of two 2D lens images.
You should consider yourself fortunate. I tried it just how and it seems the computer running the bot has been slashdotted:
You don't have to sell them to profit-maximizing corporations. Sell them to environmental groups, and with a deed restriction that prevents (heavy) commercial development. They'll bid less (because they won't try to run it at a profit), but it'll go off the books and give the Feds some much needed windfall and a reduction in maintenance costs.
I'm not a homeowner, I don't pay property taxes, and I've had catastrophic things happen in my life. It's just that I recognize that there are lifestyle issues that have to be addressed when helping the poor, and freebies like Section 8 (or its worse predecessors) don't fix those problems but rather, lets them cascade to others and promotes continued poor lifestyle choices.
So, which tax was the world paying for Japan's tsunami detection, thereby providing the implied substantiation it gave your argument?
I like energy research, plus (non-toll) roads and bridges. Agreed there.
However:
Currently-federal parks can go private.
Local public schools can do the job without federal "assistance". The feds just take money and give it to schools. Um, if a state needs more money for its schools, they can raise it themselves, that's where most of the money comes from. There was a department of education for only a fraction of the history of public schools.
No more low income housing? GREAT! Section 8ers get into the program as a result of horrible lifestyle choices and ruin any neighborhood that will let them in. People who can't afford those places should move to where they *can* afford, rather than jumping the queue in front of people willing to pay for those spots. There is *always* affordable housing if you're willing to look; federal assistance just crowds out the prime spots.
I think you're significantly overestimating the damage from these changes. But I agree about the two things above, plus NOAA. And I mostly agree with Ron Paul, but ffs, cut the useless departments first, not f***ing NOAA!
It's ok to do that but at some point if they are doing similar work to the regular employees with similar experience and time with the company then the company is generally obligated to give them similar compensation.
That's exactly what they do here (the same work as directs), and the issue was discrimination law, not compensation.
Are you actually familiar with the intricacies of this topic, or are you just guessing?
Holy crap! You're saying that there's a voicechat app for the iPhone now? That interfaces with the existing telephone infrastructure? And let's you use your real telephone # on it? What's it called?
Interesting. I know a lot of employees where I work (aerospace engineering) that are classified as contractors, and indeed are sent there via a contracting agency (that they display on the employee badge), and yet they work there full time, for pretty long (indefinite) periods. And they're exempt from all the politically correct training that directs have to go through.
Seems it's quite easy to count someone as a contractor.
Since an actor is essentially a Contractor and not an employee, they are hired on the merits of their qualifications
So what exactly stops all the other employers out there from just classifying their employees as "contractors" and thereby ignore the entire labyrinthine system of employment law?
You obviously have expertise in this area, but I don't see how that's a relevant comparison. My suggestion was for the device to siphon off glucose your body would normally pass through its regular metabolic channels (and thus store as fat); DNP had numerous effects in addition to simply consuming energy. A device that coverts it into electricity could just turn the glucose into harmless smaller compounds like water and CO2.
There may be a problem I'm missing, but your argument seems to be "liposuction doesn't work because diet pills f*** you up". Huh?
It seems like the usage of your body's energy is a feature, not just a cost. Would it be possible to have some device use as much energy from your body as possible so as to keep you from getting fat? And for a triple-play, how about if that energy could also be stored or transmitted for consumer use, displacing some of your expenditures on electricity?
Obviously, by that point the logistics would be a major issue, but it would be awesome if something could tackle the problems of implant powering, obesity, and energy all at once.
Not when they have to comply with FCC rules (one of its few reasonable ones) that require such a device to accept all interference from higher-ranked EM transmitters, even if it means degradation of performance. (Check the notice on any short-range EM transmitter device you have -- anything blue-tooth and/or wi-fi only should have it.)
Not a dig on FCC rules, this is actually a reasonable one. If you want to get your wireless brakes upped in communication priority (probably requiring you to own a piece of the spectrum just so you can reject interference and guarantee the same reliablility that comes from cheap bike parts) and spend all the money and hassle it would take ... more power to ya!
We already long had short-range wireless devices we can use, it's just that they don't have catastrophic effects if the signal is interrupted for a millisecond.
Why can't they go back to normal, respectable names, like Hairy Hardon or whatever?
Alright, points taken and I withdraw my objection (to the extent that has any significance on Slashdot). You certainly know the topic better than I.
You know what would be even cooler? If Anonymous found a polynominal-time method of factoring large semi-primes, thereby breaking the RSA cryptosystem, and published the algorithm!
Now *that* would cause mayhem, and be perfectly legal too!
It's a little harder though.
Right, except that would fragment the DNS infrastructure and break about 15 RFCs ... not to mention the entire concept of a URL, which is supposed to mean UNIVERSAL Resource Locator.
That's "Universal" as in, you won't have to say, "oh, yeah man, just go to example.com ... on MicroDNS, not QuicknetDNS."
I'm not worried about the soldiers being "hear". I'm worried about the soldiers being "do". More specifically, about the soldiers being "kill their country's citizens". Or about the soldies being "answer only to the whims of the leader".
"Hear"? No, the I'm fine with the soldiers being that all they want!
What next though? Jacob Appelbaum gets to disappear w a black bag?
Geez, dude, getting a little hyperbolic there? It's not like the federal government is writing up secret hit lists on American citizens or anything.
Oh, wait...
Wow, thanks for all that extensive effort you spent to prove your controversial thesis that an agency that can tax peter to pay you can provide a better value than an enterprise that has to be self-sustaining.
I totally never would have guessed that I'd be able to make a profit while giving stuff away, if I had the power to tax. Just blows my fucking mind.
Okay, go back to Digg now.