He called AppleCare, and they are not Apple employees - they work for another company on behalf of Apple but are not directly employed by Apple.
That means they are Apple employees indirectly. Apple is ultimately responsible for the behavior of those AppleCare employees much like they are their own employees.
Also calling a tech support line... instead of Apple's publicly available PR number does not strike me as "reasonable attempts"
The tech support operators should have forwarded him to the correct department. So when you want to do the right thing, you are responsible to hunt down just the right phone number, but an actual employee is not?
he could also have walked to Apple's HQ and made an attempt to return it that way, since it was just around the corner.
He talked to them. He gave them a reasonable chance. It is also said that he waited a week for them to get back to him. That is all that should be expected of him to kindly take care of somebody else's property. Apple didn't lose its property because of what this guy did. Apple lost its property because Apple's employees made the big mistake of not taking the phone back.
we have no proof he even called the tech support line.
My arguments above have been assuming the reports that he called are true. If they aren't, then it looks like he broke the law, but given the claim I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Phone records may settle that issue. In a way, calling may have been smarter than going directly to headquarters. If they'd sent him out the door with it, he may have no evidence he'd even offered it back.
When you're doing the right thing and trying to give something back to somebody for free and they make the stupid mistake of refusing, it shouldn't be your responsibility to waste your time arguing with them or running around to get them to take it back. They should have just said "thanks, here's the address to send it to" or "thanks, if one of our people reports a missing prototype, we'll get back to you".
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall... turn the property over to the police department...
If Apple didn't claim it, then it must be turned over to the police station, not sold for $5000.
Often when property is found, the owner is known to the finder. For example someone might say "It looks like joe forgot his sunglasses again." I think "If the owner... has not claimed the property..." is for when you know who it belongs to but you can't or don't want to bother contacting the owner, so you are expected to turn it over to police. But in this case, Apple didn't just not claim the item, an Apple employee intentionally told the guy not to return it. I don't think an item has to be turned over if it is intentionally abandoned. He didn't need to search for other owners after finding the correct owner.
From what I heard, the finder of the phone called Apple and Apple refused the offer to return it. I'm not a lawyer but I'd say that was a reasonable effort to return the phone to its owner. The finder shouldn't be responsible to go out of his way to save a corporation from making a stupid mistake. At that point, it seems to me that the phone belonged to the finder because it was intentionally abandoned by an employee of its owner and so there was no stolen property. It's trade secrets were no longer secrets because Apple had released them to a member of the public with no obligation.
Even though Apple made a mistake, I'd say the phone was still intentionally abandoned because the Apple employees intentionally told him not to return the phone. The fact that an Apple employee was making a mistake doesn't make the act of abandoning the phone unintentional, because if that was the case then anybody could be held criminally liable for theft if they accepted a free gift from any employee that was mistakenly giving away company property. Employees do stupid things sometimes, and it is the employer that has to bear the losses for the employees' mistakes. You save money on minimum wage operators at the cost of the occasional stupid mistake.
The Chinese government doesn't allow open criticism of the government and they don't allow dissident candidates on the ballot. That makes the Chinese government criminal by any reasonable interpretation.
You are saying like you know thats a definite fact and in all cases so.
Are you seriously arguing that there is freedom of speech and real democracy in China? I can't put a simple proof in one sentence, but if you really have any doubts, there is plenty of evidence available. Among the evidence is that China made Google censor search results of political topics they didn't like. It's pretty easy to verify that kind of thing if you want to.
If Chinese government doesn't allow criticism of government, why did they allow Google to criticize them?
Did the Chinese government allow Google to publicly criticize them IN CHINA for suppressing political free speech? Obviously they couldn't stop Google's criticism in the US.
I'm not sure it's all so black and white as you think.
That's my main point of these posts, it is very black and white. The Chinese government is clearly criminal because they don't allow freedom of speech or fair elections.
Do you know what the word "criminal" even means? Exactly which unilateral worldwide accepted law is China breaking by any reasonable interpretation?
The Chinese government is breaking its own civil rights laws. Besides, I call it criminal less in the technical sense that it is breaking its own and international law, and more in the sense that it is criminal because it is bad. The Chinese government could also just be called murdering thieves. They steal the labor of Chinese citizens and kill or imprison those who resist their crime. I avoided that terminology to be less incendiary, but it is what they really should be called.
I _think_ you're mainly talking about free speech, and claiming that the US has free speech. It doesn't. There is a reason Wikileaks is not hosted in the US, for example. The DMCA is an obvious example of legislation designed to curtail free speech too, through the back door.
No country has perfect freedom of speech. You could argue that copyright,slander,pornography bans, Nazi bans, etc are violations of freedom of speech. But in the US, many people viciously criticize the government openly in widespread publications. There is a big difference between that and China.
If you're talking about democracy, the US has a representative democracy.... which is not a democracy. Your voice does not get heard at all if there is a person either side of you saying something different.
A representative democracy or a representative republic is a subcategory of democracy by the modern definition of the term democracy. The term democracy today means that the people have the ultimate power by means of the vote. At one time the term democracy only applied to what today we call a direct democracy, where the people vote directly on the laws.
In the US, if your voice is saying something sensible, it will very likely get heard. Don't confuse people or the news media dismissing what you say because it's unreasonable or they disagree with you, with your voice not being heard.
If you're looking for a better democracy, the Palestinian people democratically voted Hamas in, then the international community shunned them. Democracy is _not_ respected in the international community.
Democracy is respected but it isn't the ultimate ethic. If the majority vote to violate the rights of others, then the rights of that majority won't be respected either.
Free speech and democracy are not necessarily linked.
They're linked in at least one direction - if there is no free speech then there is no democracy.
I don't think you can go so far as to call it a "plain fact" that the PRC is a "criminal dictatorship" (in the mold of the DPRK for example). That is an opinion and a fairly incendiary one, ultimately not necessary to your point.
The Chinese government doesn't allow open criticism of the government and they don't allow dissident candidates on the ballot. That makes the Chinese government criminal by any reasonable interpretation.
In most democratic countries, there are very healthy and active reform and fringe parties that regularly get a significant percentage of the popular vote.
Those democratic systems may well be superior to the US system. But those fringe parties probably only have about as much power as the majority parties let them have anyway. In the US, those fringe parties can and do campaign openly. If they can convince the voters to go along, the majority parties would probably adopt their platform. In China they would be killed or imprisoned just for speaking out against the government.
There's absolutely no difference between a police officer obtaining information through illegal means and a mafia criminal doing the same. None.
At that point they're both criminals. In fact, I'd say the police officer is worse given that the mafia dude probably hasn't taken any sort of constitutional oath.
I wasn't suggesting that it's ok for a police officer to illegally obtain info. The difference is that while the US government and some US law enforcement agents are flawed and occasionally commit crimes, the Chinese government is fundamentally a criminal organization, like the mafia.
If the Chinese government was requiring Google to turn over info on real (not political) criminals, after legitimate legal process, nobody would be complaining.
The founders of the US revolted because they were explicitly denied the right to vote. And they weren't terrorists because they didn't target non-combatants.
No election is perfect and corruption can't be eliminated completely, but in the US people can openly call for change and dissident candidates can and do get on the ballot. You may think that the majority of voters have been duped, but that doesn't put the US government into anything like the category that the government of China is in.
Arguably, a dictatorship is never criminal, at least by it's own laws.
Actually, the Chinese government even violates its own laws. Chinese law guarantees freedom of speech and democracy. The government just breaks the law under false pretenses or absurd interpretations.
I've gotten three troll mods for my comment, which was directly on point and not excessively incendiary. At least it wasn't any more incendiary than necessary to state the plain fact that the Chinese government is a criminal dictatorship, and that's why Google shouldn't give out info on political dissidents to China, but it's maybe ok for them to give info on criminals to the US. I keep getting hit by this possibly Chinese government moderator abuse. Somebody should strip those mods of their mod privileges.
Actually, I don't think it is ok to overthrow a dictatorship by ANY means necessary. Specifically, I don't condone terrorism, which is targeting non-combatants.
The difference between giving access to US law enforcement and giving access to the Chinese government is like the difference between giving access to a police officer or a mafia criminal. The US government does criminal things sometimes, but the Chinese government IS criminal all the time, because it's a dictatorship. In the US, you can openly criticize the government, and if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate. In China a reform candidate can't even run, and the people aren't allowed to openly complain about it. If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over. Somebody who wants to overthrow the Chinese government violently isn't a terrorist, because the people have a right to overthrow a dictatorship by any means necessary. But the people of the US have the freedom to criticize the government and vote it out of office, so someone who tries to overthrow the US government by violence actually is a terrorist or criminal. The US government isn't perfect, but the Chinese government is in a whole different class of bad.
Though it may not have done much for him, the same treatments may have better results on others on average, and therefore be worth it. Or maybe not. Also, medical bills tend to be grossly inflated, so the real cost may have only been something like $150,000. It's a quadruple the price and give the insurance company 75% off scam (but still charge the cash customer the over inflated price, partly to make up for cash customers who don't pay).
You might want to select USB wireless devices that have as much of the firmware running in the host as possible to avoid overloading the little microcontrollers that are built into the radios. You might also want to have a bunch of cat5 cables hanging around the perimeter of the place in case people who need the net cant get it wirelessly.
He could probably get a small fast airplane for about $20,000 to cut his commute time two thirds. If he resold it after he got another job or moved, it might only cost him a few thousand.
It seems to have almost become common wisdom that extra strong cryptography is useless because of the possibility they can beat the password out of you. It should be remembered though that a rubber hose attack isn't always practical. For example when Nixon wanted to get intel from the Democratic National Committee, a rubber hose attack on the DNC chairman might not have had desirable political effects. Yet someone like Nixon today may be able to bring the most powerful resources of a major government to bear on a 1024 bit RSA key, at relatively little cost to the attacker. There may also be ways to mitigate such attacks. For example, a fake distress password given away during torture may alert targets and allow encrypted data to be burned before the attacker can locate it. Also, if it is important enough, some people are able to resist torture.
As for the original question though, I'd guess that ssh is secure enough that unless attacks are expected from the most powerful attackers, convenience(productivity) may be the biggest determination of policy on this question. But if the question must be answered, I'd say that staying logged in will expose you to attacks on AES, but repeating your login will expose you to more attacks on both AES and the login protocol. So I'd guess you'd want to stay logged in.
The parent post was hit by moderator abuse. My post was also hit by moderator abuse. It looks like someone sympathetic to the Chinese government is abusing Slashdot. If you have mod points and you see this message, please browse through the down modded posts to check for abuse.
The Chinese government is blatantly and extensively violating the almost universally recognized standards for human rights. Even the Chinese government itself recognizes the rights it violates. The Chinese government are murdering thieving criminals, so it is absurd to grant certificate issuing privileges to them or any other entity in a country without freedom of speech or a reasonable approximation of democracy. Some would try to argue that political philosophy is all relative, and that governments like the US are criminal as well. But while no country is perfect, there is a HUGE difference between flawed democratic countries like the US and countries who blatantly massively violate freedom of speech and who's democracy isn't even roughly legitimate. There is a large gulf between approximately-just and blatantly-criminal governments, which can be identified by a single feature: freedom of speech. If the people can openly debate their government, then the people will bring the government approximately into the control of the people. Sometimes it is said that we should let other countries run their country the way they want to. But if there is no democracy and freedom of speech, then how does anyone know how "they" (the people) want to run their country? If there is no democracy then all we know is how "they" (the criminal government) wants to run their country.
DON'T GIVE MURDERING THIEVES THE KEYS TO YOUR SECURITY!
By my count: Algebraic: 2 + 4 = * ( 5 + 6 = 10 keystrokes
RPN: 2 Enter 4 + 5 Enter 6 + * 9 keystrokes
Although it is only a single stroke on this problem, there does seem to be an advantage in keystrokes. I think there would be an additional keystroke saved on each additional sum in parenthesis that you tacked on to the product.
I've heard that RPN calculators save keystrokes, but my precalculus book listed RPN and algebraic keystrokes for various problems, and it seemed that the savings was only due to unnecessary keystrokes with the algebraic version. Looking at several examples in that book, I couldn't find one where an efficient user of an algebraic order calculator couldn't do the problems in just as few keystrokes. Could someone give an example of a problem where RPN uses fewer strokes than an algebraic order calculator (including what strokes are needed on the RPN)?
It would seem that the chips aren't cloned in their entirety - however it is possible to create a fake card which is good enough to fool some machines in some circumstances.
The machines that would take a cloned card are probably the ones that will work with only the magstripe. That would protect the card holder somewhat against fraudulent charges, especially if the charge was in another country. You still might have a hard time getting your money back if your pin was used though.
Are some locations accepting cards with only a magstripe and pin and non-functioning chips?
Not possible unless you're the bank - the magstripe doesn't contain the PIN. The verification process is "card reader asks the chip if the PIN supplied is OK. Chip says either yes or no". Incidentally, this is a weak spot - build a chip which always says "yes" and suddenly you don't need the cardholders' PIN.
In the US cards don't typically have chips. They only have mag stripes. But ATM cards work with a pin even though they don't have a chip. The card reader pin pad encrypts the pin after it is typed, and sends it to the bank and the bank confirms if the pin is correct. No chip is needed in the card. I assumed UK cards could work similarly with regard to the pin, though with additional protection provided by the chip. With the pin being stored only at the bank and in the card holder's brain, it doesn't matter what the card says about the validity of the pin. The card need not even know what the pin is.
While these chip and pin systems might tend to shift liability to the card holder, the reduction in the number of frauds might nevertheless make it cheaper for the card holder anyway.
Banks have not reduced their charges as a result of this system - indeed, most personal UK bank accounts are free of charge anyway. Where you get charged is if you have a business bank account or if you exceed your overdraft limit - and if you exceed your overdraft limit, boy do you get charged.
The reduced fraud costs might not show up in direct charges. Merchants competing on price could reduce retail prices with lower fraud and negotiate lower merchant fees with card companies who would also have less fraud costs. And credit card interest rates could also be lowered a little. On the other hand, saving one percent on all your purchases might not be much consolation if you're one of the unlucky few that gets stuck with a fraudulent $10000 bill, because chip and pin allowed the bank to transfer the liability to you. It must also be remembered that banks don't always make it easy to get your money back even if chip and pin isn't used. If the charge is from Nigeria, then they'll probably have to give you your money back, but if the charge is made locally or shipped to your house and intercepted, you might have a hard time convincing them it was fraudulent. Chip and pin would probably drastically reduce such charges. I expect chip and pin and this verified by visa thing would be beneficial to us card holders over all.
The real solution to this though is that cards need to have a display and pin pad on the card. That's hard because they're thin, but the system would be much more secure. A fake pin pad would not be able to capture the pin (though a camera still might). And the card holder could see on the display who the payment was being sent to and how much was being sent. Such a system could even be used on a poorly secured home computer without much worry, since no transaction could take place without the card holder physically authorizing it and seeing the amount and destination on the card's secure display. If the card's operating system was simple enough, it would stand a reasonable chance of being virus proof.
You'd better tell the people whose chip cards have been cloned.
That article mentions the cloning of the magstripes and the capture of pin numbers, but it doesn't explicitly mention the cloning of the chip. Cloning magstripes is almost trivial. Capturing pins isn't too hard. But cloning a chip should be very difficult without destroying the card and having long term access to the card. Even then it should be very difficult. Are there any demonstrated examples of criminals cloning credit card chips (or extracting the private cryptographic key)? There may be be proof of concept demonstrations done by researchers, particularly on satellite cards, but has it been found in the wild for credit cards? And has it been verified, not just a crooked card holder falsely claiming his card was stolen?
Of course cloning the magstripe shouldn't do any good without the chip. Are some locations accepting cards with only a magstripe and pin and non-functioning chips?
While these chip and pin systems might tend to shift liability to the card holder, the reduction in the number of frauds might nevertheless make it cheaper for the card holder anyway. The American system of giving every merchant and his employees all the information needed to max out your credit card account, seems almost insane. Chip and pin and or a push system of payment like paypal, makes a lot more sense to me.
The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.
More misdirection. It doesn't matter if the world is getting warmer or if we're making it warmer. If it is not much warmer than it usually is naturally, then there is no big problem. We started measuring temperature with thermometers during a cold period. It's not disturbing that it is warmer now than during the cold period. The conclusion that the warmth is unprecedented does depend on temperature reconstructions of the medieval warm period a thousand years ago.
Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick.
But what good are those reconstructions if they may be using use known bad data or faulty analysis like the original hockey stick did? And how can we trust climate scientists to tell us if there is bad data or analysis, if they're still defending bad research?
Are you accusing the US National Academy of Science of being part of a conspiracy? Or of being incompetent? Because the report they wrote, at the request the U.S. Congress, endorses the hockey stick.
Incompetent is a strong word. I'd probably say insufficiently skeptical or maybe even biased. I'm having trouble downloading that report, but from your quote, it appears they're citing ice cap and glacier melting to defend the hockey stick. From what I understand, those data don't go back a thousand years and can't reasonably be used to buttress the hockey stick. It appears that maybe the NAS report was prepared by environmentalists or at least by scientists who didn't want to admit that bad science had been promoted and defended for so long. I was thinking that climate crisis promoters should admit the hockey stick was bad science to begin recovering their credibility, but then I realized that they have to keep denying it, because if they admitted it, their credibility would be destroyed for decades.
Can you admit that trees that gave false temperatures for the last 50 years should not have been used in a reconstruction of temperatures a thousand years ago?
Using tree ring data from trees that give false temperatures for the last 50 years is unreasonable. If the IPCC won't admit such an obvious truth, then none of their other evidence can be trusted. We can't go out and do boreholes ourselves. We have to assess the trustworthyness of those who report the data and analysis. There appears to be a widespread defense of bad research in the climate community. That casts serious doubt on all the other research. What makes you think they didn't just stick some data, that they knew was bad, into the borehole analysis and "hide the decline" with faked graphs, like they did with the tree rings? All of the graphs except one on the page you linked to, used the deceptive tactic of cutting off the graph before getting back to the medieval warm period. The only graph on that page that went back to the medieval warm period was the last one, and it was created by, you guessed it, Michael Mann, the guy who used known bad data in the original hockey stick.
Slashdot Mirror
jo_ham wrote:
That means they are Apple employees indirectly. Apple is ultimately responsible for the behavior of those AppleCare employees much like they are their own employees.
The tech support operators should have forwarded him to the correct department. So when you want to do the right thing, you are responsible to hunt down just the right phone number, but an actual employee is not?
He talked to them. He gave them a reasonable chance. It is also said that he waited a week for them to get back to him. That is all that should be expected of him to kindly take care of somebody else's property. Apple didn't lose its property because of what this guy did. Apple lost its property because Apple's employees made the big mistake of not taking the phone back.
My arguments above have been assuming the reports that he called are true. If they aren't, then it looks like he broke the law, but given the claim I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Phone records may settle that issue. In a way, calling may have been smarter than going directly to headquarters. If they'd sent him out the door with it, he may have no evidence he'd even offered it back.
When you're doing the right thing and trying to give something back to somebody for free and they make the stupid mistake of refusing, it shouldn't be your responsibility to waste your time arguing with them or running around to get them to take it back. They should have just said "thanks, here's the address to send it to" or "thanks, if one of our people reports a missing prototype, we'll get back to you".
Often when property is found, the owner is known to the finder. For example someone might say "It looks like joe forgot his sunglasses again." ... has not claimed the property..." is for when you know who it belongs to but you can't or don't want to bother contacting the owner, so you are expected to turn it over to police. But in this case, Apple didn't just not claim the item, an Apple employee intentionally told the guy not to return it. I don't think an item has to be turned over if it is intentionally abandoned. He didn't need to search for other owners after finding the correct owner.
I think "If the owner
From what I heard, the finder of the phone called Apple and Apple refused the offer to return it. I'm not a lawyer but I'd say that was a reasonable effort to return the phone to its owner. The finder shouldn't be responsible to go out of his way to save a corporation from making a stupid mistake. At that point, it seems to me that the phone belonged to the finder because it was intentionally abandoned by an employee of its owner and so there was no stolen property. It's trade secrets were no longer secrets because Apple had released them to a member of the public with no obligation.
Even though Apple made a mistake, I'd say the phone was still intentionally abandoned because the Apple employees intentionally told him not to return the phone. The fact that an Apple employee was making a mistake doesn't make the act of abandoning the phone unintentional, because if that was the case then anybody could be held criminally liable for theft if they accepted a free gift from any employee that was mistakenly giving away company property. Employees do stupid things sometimes, and it is the employer that has to bear the losses for the employees' mistakes. You save money on minimum wage operators at the cost of the occasional stupid mistake.
Are you seriously arguing that there is freedom of speech and real democracy in China? I can't put a simple proof in one sentence, but if you really have any doubts, there is plenty of evidence available. Among the evidence is that China made Google censor search results of political topics they didn't like. It's pretty easy to verify that kind of thing if you want to.
Did the Chinese government allow Google to publicly criticize them IN CHINA for suppressing political free speech? Obviously they couldn't stop Google's criticism in the US.
That's my main point of these posts, it is very black and white. The Chinese government is clearly criminal because they don't allow freedom of speech or fair elections.
The Chinese government is breaking its own civil rights laws. Besides, I call it criminal less in the technical sense that it is breaking its own and international law, and more in the sense that it is criminal because it is bad. The Chinese government could also just be called murdering thieves. They steal the labor of Chinese citizens and kill or imprison those who resist their crime. I avoided that terminology to be less incendiary, but it is what they really should be called.
No country has perfect freedom of speech. You could argue that copyright,slander,pornography bans, Nazi bans, etc are violations of freedom of speech. But in the US, many people viciously criticize the government openly in widespread publications. There is a big difference between that and China.
A representative democracy or a representative republic is a subcategory of democracy by the modern definition of the term democracy. The term democracy today means that the people have the ultimate power by means of the vote. At one time the term democracy only applied to what today we call a direct democracy, where the people vote directly on the laws.
In the US, if your voice is saying something sensible, it will very likely get heard. Don't confuse people or the news media dismissing what you say because it's unreasonable or they disagree with you, with your voice not being heard.
Democracy is respected but it isn't the ultimate ethic. If the majority vote to violate the rights of others, then the rights of that majority won't be respected either.
They're linked in at least one direction - if there is no free speech then there is no democracy.
The Chinese government doesn't allow open criticism of the government and they don't allow dissident candidates on the ballot. That makes the Chinese government criminal by any reasonable interpretation.
Those democratic systems may well be superior to the US system. But those fringe parties probably only have about as much power as the majority parties let them have anyway. In the US, those fringe parties can and do campaign openly. If they can convince the voters to go along, the majority parties would probably adopt their platform. In China they would be killed or imprisoned just for speaking out against the government.
I wasn't suggesting that it's ok for a police officer to illegally obtain info.
The difference is that while the US government and some US law enforcement agents are flawed and occasionally commit crimes, the Chinese government is fundamentally a criminal organization, like the mafia.
If the Chinese government was requiring Google to turn over info on real (not political) criminals, after legitimate legal process, nobody would be complaining.
The founders of the US revolted because they were explicitly denied the right to vote. And they weren't terrorists because they didn't target non-combatants.
No election is perfect and corruption can't be eliminated completely, but in the US people can openly call for change and dissident candidates can and do get on the ballot. You may think that the majority of voters have been duped, but that doesn't put the US government into anything like the category that the government of China is in.
Actually, the Chinese government even violates its own laws. Chinese law guarantees freedom of speech and democracy. The government just breaks the law under false pretenses or absurd interpretations.
I've gotten three troll mods for my comment, which was directly on point and not excessively incendiary. At least it wasn't any more incendiary than necessary to state the plain fact that the Chinese government is a criminal dictatorship, and that's why Google shouldn't give out info on political dissidents to China, but it's maybe ok for them to give info on criminals to the US. I keep getting hit by this possibly Chinese government moderator abuse. Somebody should strip those mods of their mod privileges.
Actually, I don't think it is ok to overthrow a dictatorship by ANY means necessary. Specifically, I don't condone terrorism, which is targeting non-combatants.
The difference between giving access to US law enforcement and giving access to the Chinese government is like the difference between giving access to a police officer or a mafia criminal. The US government does criminal things sometimes, but the Chinese government IS criminal all the time, because it's a dictatorship. In the US, you can openly criticize the government, and if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate. In China a reform candidate can't even run, and the people aren't allowed to openly complain about it. If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over. Somebody who wants to overthrow the Chinese government violently isn't a terrorist, because the people have a right to overthrow a dictatorship by any means necessary. But the people of the US have the freedom to criticize the government and vote it out of office, so someone who tries to overthrow the US government by violence actually is a terrorist or criminal. The US government isn't perfect, but the Chinese government is in a whole different class of bad.
Though it may not have done much for him, the same treatments may have better results on others on average, and therefore be worth it. Or maybe not. Also, medical bills tend to be grossly inflated, so the real cost may have only been something like $150,000. It's a quadruple the price and give the insurance company 75% off scam (but still charge the cash customer the over inflated price, partly to make up for cash customers who don't pay).
You might want to select USB wireless devices that have as much of the firmware running in the host as possible to avoid overloading the little microcontrollers that are built into the radios. You might also want to have a bunch of cat5 cables hanging around the perimeter of the place in case people who need the net cant get it wirelessly.
He could probably get a small fast airplane for about $20,000 to cut his commute time two thirds. If he resold it after he got another job or moved, it might only cost him a few thousand.
It seems to have almost become common wisdom that extra strong cryptography is useless because of the possibility they can beat the password out of you. It should be remembered though that a rubber hose attack isn't always practical. For example when Nixon wanted to get intel from the Democratic National Committee, a rubber hose attack on the DNC chairman might not have had desirable political effects. Yet someone like Nixon today may be able to bring the most powerful resources of a major government to bear on a 1024 bit RSA key, at relatively little cost to the attacker. There may also be ways to mitigate such attacks. For example, a fake distress password given away during torture may alert targets and allow encrypted data to be burned before the attacker can locate it. Also, if it is important enough, some people are able to resist torture.
As for the original question though, I'd guess that ssh is secure enough that unless attacks are expected from the most powerful attackers, convenience(productivity) may be the biggest determination of policy on this question. But if the question must be answered, I'd say that staying logged in will expose you to attacks on AES, but repeating your login will expose you to more attacks on both AES and the login protocol. So I'd guess you'd want to stay logged in.
The parent post was hit by moderator abuse. My post was also hit by moderator abuse. It looks like someone sympathetic to the Chinese government is abusing Slashdot. If you have mod points and you see this message, please browse through the down modded posts to check for abuse.
The Chinese government is blatantly and extensively violating the almost universally recognized standards for human rights. Even the Chinese government itself recognizes the rights it violates. The Chinese government are murdering thieving criminals, so it is absurd to grant certificate issuing privileges to them or any other entity in a country without freedom of speech or a reasonable approximation of democracy. Some would try to argue that political philosophy is all relative, and that governments like the US are criminal as well. But while no country is perfect, there is a HUGE difference between flawed democratic countries like the US and countries who blatantly massively violate freedom of speech and who's democracy isn't even roughly legitimate. There is a large gulf between approximately-just and blatantly-criminal governments, which can be identified by a single feature: freedom of speech. If the people can openly debate their government, then the people will bring the government approximately into the control of the people. Sometimes it is said that we should let other countries run their country the way they want to. But if there is no democracy and freedom of speech, then how does anyone know how "they" (the people) want to run their country? If there is no democracy then all we know is how "they" (the criminal government) wants to run their country.
DON'T GIVE MURDERING THIEVES THE KEYS TO YOUR SECURITY!
By my count:
Algebraic: 2 + 4 = * ( 5 + 6 =
10 keystrokes
RPN: 2 Enter 4 + 5 Enter 6 + *
9 keystrokes
Although it is only a single stroke on this problem, there does seem to be an advantage in keystrokes. I think there would be an additional keystroke saved on each additional sum in parenthesis that you tacked on to the product.
I've heard that RPN calculators save keystrokes, but my precalculus book listed RPN and algebraic keystrokes for various problems, and it seemed that the savings was only due to unnecessary keystrokes with the algebraic version. Looking at several examples in that book, I couldn't find one where an efficient user of an algebraic order calculator couldn't do the problems in just as few keystrokes. Could someone give an example of a problem where RPN uses fewer strokes than an algebraic order calculator (including what strokes are needed on the RPN)?
The machines that would take a cloned card are probably the ones that will work with only the magstripe. That would protect the card holder somewhat against fraudulent charges, especially if the charge was in another country. You still might have a hard time getting your money back if your pin was used though.
In the US cards don't typically have chips. They only have mag stripes. But ATM cards work with a pin even though they don't have a chip. The card reader pin pad encrypts the pin after it is typed, and sends it to the bank and the bank confirms if the pin is correct. No chip is needed in the card. I assumed UK cards could work similarly with regard to the pin, though with additional protection provided by the chip. With the pin being stored only at the bank and in the card holder's brain, it doesn't matter what the card says about the validity of the pin. The card need not even know what the pin is.
The reduced fraud costs might not show up in direct charges. Merchants competing on price could reduce retail prices with lower fraud and negotiate lower merchant fees with card companies who would also have less fraud costs. And credit card interest rates could also be lowered a little. On the other hand, saving one percent on all your purchases might not be much consolation if you're one of the unlucky few that gets stuck with a fraudulent $10000 bill, because chip and pin allowed the bank to transfer the liability to you. It must also be remembered that banks don't always make it easy to get your money back even if chip and pin isn't used. If the charge is from Nigeria, then they'll probably have to give you your money back, but if the charge is made locally or shipped to your house and intercepted, you might have a hard time convincing them it was fraudulent. Chip and pin would probably drastically reduce such charges. I expect chip and pin and this verified by visa thing would be beneficial to us card holders over all.
The real solution to this though is that cards need to have a display and pin pad on the card. That's hard because they're thin, but the system would be much more secure. A fake pin pad would not be able to capture the pin (though a camera still might). And the card holder could see on the display who the payment was being sent to and how much was being sent. Such a system could even be used on a poorly secured home computer without much worry, since no transaction could take place without the card holder physically authorizing it and seeing the amount and destination on the card's secure display. If the card's operating system was simple enough, it would stand a reasonable chance of being virus proof.
That article mentions the cloning of the magstripes and the capture of pin numbers, but it doesn't explicitly mention the cloning of the chip. Cloning magstripes is almost trivial. Capturing pins isn't too hard. But cloning a chip should be very difficult without destroying the card and having long term access to the card. Even then it should be very difficult. Are there any demonstrated examples of criminals cloning credit card chips (or extracting the private cryptographic key)? There may be be proof of concept demonstrations done by researchers, particularly on satellite cards, but has it been found in the wild for credit cards? And has it been verified, not just a crooked card holder falsely claiming his card was stolen?
Of course cloning the magstripe shouldn't do any good without the chip. Are some locations accepting cards with only a magstripe and pin and non-functioning chips?
While these chip and pin systems might tend to shift liability to the card holder, the reduction in the number of frauds might nevertheless make it cheaper for the card holder anyway. The American system of giving every merchant and his employees all the information needed to max out your credit card account, seems almost insane. Chip and pin and or a push system of payment like paypal, makes a lot more sense to me.
Using tree ring data from trees that give false temperatures for the last 50 years is unreasonable. If the IPCC won't admit such an obvious truth, then none of their other evidence can be trusted. We can't go out and do boreholes ourselves. We have to assess the trustworthyness of those who report the data and analysis. There appears to be a widespread defense of bad research in the climate community. That casts serious doubt on all the other research. What makes you think they didn't just stick some data, that they knew was bad, into the borehole analysis and "hide the decline" with faked graphs, like they did with the tree rings? All of the graphs except one on the page you linked to, used the deceptive tactic of cutting off the graph before getting back to the medieval warm period. The only graph on that page that went back to the medieval warm period was the last one, and it was created by, you guessed it, Michael Mann, the guy who used known bad data in the original hockey stick.