"Some of those bums attack other players because they aren't all that great at an NHL level without it. Scott Stevens, I'm looking at you."
Idiot... Scott Stevens was a clean-hitting, scoring and skilled player. Yes, I'm a Devils fan but that's irrelevant - you're looking at the wrong player here jerky. Look towards Pronger, Alfredson, just from this series!
To pay for this necessary war... and the next ones we'll wage.
Taxing internet purchases is clearly a lobby of the retailers which don't have internet presence. Think it over for a second - if it's cheaper to buy on the Internet (including shipping) why would you buy locally? This obviously disturbs local retailers which have lobbied and are becoming successful.
What amazes me is this "Internet e-mail tax" that I keep reading about --http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/28/taxes-o n-e-mail-may-not-be-a-hoax-this-time/
This isn't a joke.
"ehh... uhhh... I uhhmm....ehh....what?" Seriously - posting a notice to take down a notice to post a notice of a takedown notice?
Who keeps track of this crap?
[quote]The lessons learned from U.S. companies' Sarbanes-Oxley efforts will lead Japan's Financial Services Agency to "soften J-SOX [requirements] a little bit," said Damianides" [/quote]
Is he serious? If J-SOX works like America's SOX... they'll have the same crap results we have. You can pay one of the "big three" a mountain of cash to write up in creative ways that you comply. Done.
I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.
What's really sad is that politics is the root cause for everything you see on the news, everything you learn, and everything you hear.
Now - to comment on the original issue presented. I think it's incredibly ironic that the NSTA refused to distribute a film which would villify some of its main contributors. The hardest thing to understand for us here is this - Exxon and the NSTA's other 'contributors' have a vested interest in us consuming fossil fuels, as they sell and research them. There are also very few alternatives. So consider this... if the current donations dry up as a result of the NSTA accepting this DVD (let's take it as a hypothetical), where does the NSTA get its funding. Right, tax dollars from the government, wait... we would have to re-shuffle the budget to get funding for that from the government, right? Does that mean our taxes go up? Does that mean that something else (some other pork-barrel project) gets less funding? And who makes this decision?... that's right - the government officials who are lobbied by big Oil... how's that for a twisted circle of life for you?
What's the solution? I don't have an answer... but it's interesting to point out all the issues with finding it. I will finish with this statement - humans being what we are - it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars:)
Sadly - I think someone previously hit the nail right on the head, and the guy is partially right about drawing the line between outrageous functionality and security. I know for a proven fact that users, when given the option of a 'secure' browser or one that lets them send web pages to buddies on their Yahoo! messenger... well you know which one they'll pick. The problem is maintaining functionality that allows the user experience to be rich and meaningful without being able to hook into the operating system... this still leaves the browser exposed! BHOs are an atrocity which we in the security world have had to live with for some time - I cringe every time my wife says "my browser is so slow" and I look into her "Manage Add-Ons" menu - there's always crap in there!
See... browser security is a constant battle between user experience and what security features we want. I don't see IE7 being any better at it... and I think FireFox had the right approach... build a base browser and force the users to add-in plugins they want to use. Microsoft's bloated IE comes with everything they think you'll ever want, toaster included, so there's just so much to exploit.
Anyway - I could rant but I'll stick to the hard truth... when presented with an option, users always choose the more functional, easier to use, more colorful version - and they don't care if it's more 'secure'... all the education in the world isn't going to change human nature folks.
I work for a major Fortune 500 financial institution as a security architect, more specifically in the web appliation space... and you wouldn't believe the things I see. The ability to make money **always** trumps security's requirements, and what's sad is - this could all be prevented.
I'll never advocate that we can resolve all identity theft (although we are sure as hell trying), now will try and tell people that it's even possible - but pushing security and balancing that with acceptable business risk is essential to the survival of many institutions in the financial world. Striking a balance; however, is often like Jedi vs. Sith... the balance swings when bad things happen.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU sir, have amazing timing! I just wrote a 2-part article on this topic! Interesting... mine was published http://portal.spidynamics.com/blogs/rafal/archive/2008/05/06/Static-Code-Analysis-Failures.aspx The Solution: http://portal.spidynamics.com/blogs/rafal/archive/2008/05/15/Hybrid-Analysis-_2D00_-The-Answer-to-Static-Code-Analysis-Shortcomings.aspx Comments welcome!! Interesting that this topic is getting so much attention all of the sudden
"Some of those bums attack other players because they aren't all that great at an NHL level without it. Scott Stevens, I'm looking at you." Idiot... Scott Stevens was a clean-hitting, scoring and skilled player. Yes, I'm a Devils fan but that's irrelevant - you're looking at the wrong player here jerky. Look towards Pronger, Alfredson, just from this series!
To pay for this necessary war... and the next ones we'll wage. Taxing internet purchases is clearly a lobby of the retailers which don't have internet presence. Think it over for a second - if it's cheaper to buy on the Internet (including shipping) why would you buy locally? This obviously disturbs local retailers which have lobbied and are becoming successful. What amazes me is this "Internet e-mail tax" that I keep reading about --http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/28/taxes-o n-e-mail-may-not-be-a-hoax-this-time/
This isn't a joke.
"ehh... uhhh... I uhhmm....ehh....what?" Seriously - posting a notice to take down a notice to post a notice of a takedown notice? Who keeps track of this crap?
[quote]The lessons learned from U.S. companies' Sarbanes-Oxley efforts will lead Japan's Financial Services Agency to "soften J-SOX [requirements] a little bit," said Damianides" [/quote] Is he serious? If J-SOX works like America's SOX... they'll have the same crap results we have. You can pay one of the "big three" a mountain of cash to write up in creative ways that you comply. Done.
I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.
:)
What's really sad is that politics is the root cause for everything you see on the news, everything you learn, and everything you hear.
Now - to comment on the original issue presented. I think it's incredibly ironic that the NSTA refused to distribute a film which would villify some of its main contributors. The hardest thing to understand for us here is this - Exxon and the NSTA's other 'contributors' have a vested interest in us consuming fossil fuels, as they sell and research them. There are also very few alternatives. So consider this... if the current donations dry up as a result of the NSTA accepting this DVD (let's take it as a hypothetical), where does the NSTA get its funding. Right, tax dollars from the government, wait... we would have to re-shuffle the budget to get funding for that from the government, right? Does that mean our taxes go up? Does that mean that something else (some other pork-barrel project) gets less funding? And who makes this decision?... that's right - the government officials who are lobbied by big Oil... how's that for a twisted circle of life for you?
What's the solution? I don't have an answer... but it's interesting to point out all the issues with finding it. I will finish with this statement - humans being what we are - it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars
Yes - of course! But then our execs couldn't claim that it was done 'cheaper off-shore'... right?
Sadly - I think someone previously hit the nail right on the head, and the guy is partially right about drawing the line between outrageous functionality and security. I know for a proven fact that users, when given the option of a 'secure' browser or one that lets them send web pages to buddies on their Yahoo! messenger... well you know which one they'll pick. The problem is maintaining functionality that allows the user experience to be rich and meaningful without being able to hook into the operating system... this still leaves the browser exposed! BHOs are an atrocity which we in the security world have had to live with for some time - I cringe every time my wife says "my browser is so slow" and I look into her "Manage Add-Ons" menu - there's always crap in there! See... browser security is a constant battle between user experience and what security features we want. I don't see IE7 being any better at it... and I think FireFox had the right approach... build a base browser and force the users to add-in plugins they want to use. Microsoft's bloated IE comes with everything they think you'll ever want, toaster included, so there's just so much to exploit. Anyway - I could rant but I'll stick to the hard truth... when presented with an option, users always choose the more functional, easier to use, more colorful version - and they don't care if it's more 'secure' ... all the education in the world isn't going to change human nature folks.
I work for a major Fortune 500 financial institution as a security architect, more specifically in the web appliation space... and you wouldn't believe the things I see. The ability to make money **always** trumps security's requirements, and what's sad is - this could all be prevented. I'll never advocate that we can resolve all identity theft (although we are sure as hell trying), now will try and tell people that it's even possible - but pushing security and balancing that with acceptable business risk is essential to the survival of many institutions in the financial world. Striking a balance; however, is often like Jedi vs. Sith... the balance swings when bad things happen.