Since the FDA is responsible for approving drugs for sale in the US, they are responsible if people die of treatable diseases elsewhere.
Therefore, we shouldn't worry about companies storing their customers' personal information unencrypted on a laptop they leave in their car in plain sight, because the market.
So instead of being assured of a standard level of security, customers (including people who sign up to comment on a website, people who want to use a bank and people who like to buy things on the internet) have to sort through the security policies of each provider and decide if it's good enough. Oh, and they also have to decide whether or not to believe the company's description of their data security policies. Does the company issue laptops? Do they require laptop drives to be encrypted? Do their employees write their decryption keys on a label stuck to the bottom of the laptop? Who knows?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The US was experiencing a period of stagflation in the late 70s and early 80s. Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, raised interest rates to bring down inflation; that deepened the recession (and was unquestionably the right thing to do), at the time the worst since the Great Depression. A large portion of the growth that we saw in the 80s was catch-up growth in recovery from that recession.
Also, I'm pretty sure that HW Bush is famous for raising taxes (in violation of one of his campaign promises) around that time. Shouldn't that have dampened the following growth?
That's why you have to borrow money to do stimulative infrastructure spending. You can raise taxes slightly in years 5-15 (after the economy has picked up) to pay for it. By that time, the real price would have been eroded by inflation, so it can actually be a net gain.
Your dad's 30-year-old stereo was probably well-made and sort of expensive if it's still in good condition now. A cheap stereo you bought at Walmart is not. The gear being sold today has inferior components.
A company providing service using the people's spectrum, especially one in a market with overwhelming barriers to entry, should have its actions held to a high level of scrutiny. They can charge people for tethering in their own app, but why should they be able to prevent you from going around that? This is exactly the kind of crap people are talking about when they discuss net neutrality: a deeply entrenched service provider who wants to restrict your access to things they don't charge for. They want to force you to use their paid service not by adding value, but by subtracting it from the competing product.
People's main problem is that the restriction is arbitrary and has no purpose other than squeezing money out of already-paying customers.
I pay Verizon $30 a month to get data to my phone. They want me to pay more to get data through my phone to my laptop. Data is data, so the same amount of usage costs more. Why? The restriction isn't technical in nature, it's purely a business decision.
If they wanted to make people pay in proportion to the load they put on the network, that's one thing. Data downloaded to a phone and bounced to a laptop doesn't create more congestion than just downloading it to the phone. I'm more than happy to pay more for moving more data, just not moving data in a slightly different way that doesn't affect their network.
Why would you want your currency to depend on the value of a commodity? If a big gold mine is discovered, the contents of your bank account shrink. If there's no more gold in the world, there's no way for nominal wealth to increase as productiveness increases, so you get deflation.
Inflation, by the way, has been below 3% for almost all of the last 20 years; how much more stable do you need your prices?
I believe that the decisions of a large company with competitors that can be counted on one hand should be subject to more scrutiny than those of a person with bad credit who wants to get on the internet, probably because I am a flaming liberal.
Also, numbers assigned to prepaid accounts are not required to be portable to other carriers, so it's a pain in the ass to switch to a different carrier. But if you're poor, you probably deserve it because you spent money on a fancy cell phone instead of whatever this asshole thinks you should buy. That's capitalism.
I hope they never need to use the internet outside of the hours the library is open.
What? Libraries are cutting back hours because of reduced funding? People work during the day? There is little-to-no overlap between their non-work hours and the library's open hours?
Poor people should hew to my standard of austerity.
All I said is that a "fancy" cell phone and a data plan for it aren't ungodly expensive anymore, and if someone with bad credit decides they want one, there is no reason they should pay an order of magnitude more than someone with better credit.
I'm not the one saying everybody who wants a fucking cell phone is an entitled prick. I never judged anybody for which consumer products they want to buy. I think everyone can set their own priorities and make their own decisions, and the best we as a society can do is to prevent predatory business plans from taking root and fucking everybody over.
I don't have to prove myself to some self-righteous cock on the internet, especially one who probably complains about young bucks driving Cadillacs and buying steaks with their welfare checks.
Home phone and internet service together usually run around $60 a month (or more), and you need a computer to use it. Looks pretty comparable to me, unless you think poor people shouldn't be able to get on the internet.
It's not 1998, cell phones are not a luxury item anymore. The internet is not a playground for the rich, it is how people find out about the world and stay in touch with friends and family and find jobs and bargain-shop. It is pretty close to a necessity.
If someone can afford rent and bills and food, communication with the outside world is the next thing on the list. You're explicitly saying that we shouldn't care about the prepaid market getting gouged for data because they shouldn't be spending their money on it anyway.
I don't necessarily disagree that the leaks caused tangible harm, but talking about the classified status of the information doesn't bring a lot of light to the situation. Pretty much nothing was declassified during the Bush administration, and the Obama White House has unfortunately followed suit. There have been documented abuses of classification, including classifying documents containing no information not available in the New York Times. Saying "WikiLeaks revealed classified information" doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.
Not apologizing for their actions, but it's a lot harder to condemn them in an environment where classification is the default, rather than something done deliberately.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the FDA is responsible for approving drugs for sale in the US, they are responsible if people die of treatable diseases elsewhere.
Therefore, we shouldn't worry about companies storing their customers' personal information unencrypted on a laptop they leave in their car in plain sight, because the market.
So instead of being assured of a standard level of security, customers (including people who sign up to comment on a website, people who want to use a bank and people who like to buy things on the internet) have to sort through the security policies of each provider and decide if it's good enough. Oh, and they also have to decide whether or not to believe the company's description of their data security policies. Does the company issue laptops? Do they require laptop drives to be encrypted? Do their employees write their decryption keys on a label stuck to the bottom of the laptop? Who knows?
FTFY
By making it grammatically incorrect?
The US was experiencing a period of stagflation in the late 70s and early 80s. Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, raised interest rates to bring down inflation; that deepened the recession (and was unquestionably the right thing to do), at the time the worst since the Great Depression. A large portion of the growth that we saw in the 80s was catch-up growth in recovery from that recession.
Also, I'm pretty sure that HW Bush is famous for raising taxes (in violation of one of his campaign promises) around that time. Shouldn't that have dampened the following growth?
Empirical research suggests that debt levels only have a negative effect on the economy above around 90% of GDP. The US is currently around 40%.
That's why you have to borrow money to do stimulative infrastructure spending. You can raise taxes slightly in years 5-15 (after the economy has picked up) to pay for it. By that time, the real price would have been eroded by inflation, so it can actually be a net gain.
Your dad's 30-year-old stereo was probably well-made and sort of expensive if it's still in good condition now. A cheap stereo you bought at Walmart is not. The gear being sold today has inferior components.
*wank sign*
A company providing service using the people's spectrum, especially one in a market with overwhelming barriers to entry, should have its actions held to a high level of scrutiny. They can charge people for tethering in their own app, but why should they be able to prevent you from going around that? This is exactly the kind of crap people are talking about when they discuss net neutrality: a deeply entrenched service provider who wants to restrict your access to things they don't charge for. They want to force you to use their paid service not by adding value, but by subtracting it from the competing product.
People's main problem is that the restriction is arbitrary and has no purpose other than squeezing money out of already-paying customers.
I pay Verizon $30 a month to get data to my phone. They want me to pay more to get data through my phone to my laptop. Data is data, so the same amount of usage costs more. Why? The restriction isn't technical in nature, it's purely a business decision.
If they wanted to make people pay in proportion to the load they put on the network, that's one thing. Data downloaded to a phone and bounced to a laptop doesn't create more congestion than just downloading it to the phone. I'm more than happy to pay more for moving more data, just not moving data in a slightly different way that doesn't affect their network.
blah blah windows 98 blah blue screen blah
Attacking a civilian's property is terrorism? You're an idiot.
Hooray! Thanks.
which doesn't have the images
Why would you want your currency to depend on the value of a commodity? If a big gold mine is discovered, the contents of your bank account shrink. If there's no more gold in the world, there's no way for nominal wealth to increase as productiveness increases, so you get deflation.
Inflation, by the way, has been below 3% for almost all of the last 20 years; how much more stable do you need your prices?
"The problems resulted in soaring costs"
That's weird, I thought the census was $1.6 billion under budget.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/08/2010_census_was_16_billion_und.html
I believe that the decisions of a large company with competitors that can be counted on one hand should be subject to more scrutiny than those of a person with bad credit who wants to get on the internet, probably because I am a flaming liberal.
Also, numbers assigned to prepaid accounts are not required to be portable to other carriers, so it's a pain in the ass to switch to a different carrier. But if you're poor, you probably deserve it because you spent money on a fancy cell phone instead of whatever this asshole thinks you should buy. That's capitalism.
I hope they never need to use the internet outside of the hours the library is open.
What? Libraries are cutting back hours because of reduced funding? People work during the day? There is little-to-no overlap between their non-work hours and the library's open hours?
Poor people should hew to my standard of austerity.
Nobody asked you to pay for anything. I just asked you to stop being a dickhead about it, but you obviously didn't hear me.
I'll make sure to say that when I see someone outside your door begging for an iPhone. It's like, you can make do with a Droid Incredible, dude!
All I said is that a "fancy" cell phone and a data plan for it aren't ungodly expensive anymore, and if someone with bad credit decides they want one, there is no reason they should pay an order of magnitude more than someone with better credit.
I'm not the one saying everybody who wants a fucking cell phone is an entitled prick. I never judged anybody for which consumer products they want to buy. I think everyone can set their own priorities and make their own decisions, and the best we as a society can do is to prevent predatory business plans from taking root and fucking everybody over.
I don't have to prove myself to some self-righteous cock on the internet, especially one who probably complains about young bucks driving Cadillacs and buying steaks with their welfare checks.
And if you can't afford to live near a library, fuck you!
How about don't tell the poor what they need and don't need?
You can buy an Android phone for $99 that can go with a prepaid plan: http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/prepaid.aspx#T-Mobile-Comet-Black-Prepaid-Refurbished
Home phone and internet service together usually run around $60 a month (or more), and you need a computer to use it. Looks pretty comparable to me, unless you think poor people shouldn't be able to get on the internet.
It's not 1998, cell phones are not a luxury item anymore. The internet is not a playground for the rich, it is how people find out about the world and stay in touch with friends and family and find jobs and bargain-shop. It is pretty close to a necessity.
If someone can afford rent and bills and food, communication with the outside world is the next thing on the list. You're explicitly saying that we shouldn't care about the prepaid market getting gouged for data because they shouldn't be spending their money on it anyway.
And you misspelled "Champagne," asshole.
RTFA.
Not MIT, just happened there.
I don't necessarily disagree that the leaks caused tangible harm, but talking about the classified status of the information doesn't bring a lot of light to the situation. Pretty much nothing was declassified during the Bush administration, and the Obama White House has unfortunately followed suit. There have been documented abuses of classification, including classifying documents containing no information not available in the New York Times. Saying "WikiLeaks revealed classified information" doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.
Not apologizing for their actions, but it's a lot harder to condemn them in an environment where classification is the default, rather than something done deliberately.