I am so tired of people always screaming for long prison terms. The priorities people have make me sad. It used to be that murder and rape were considered the worst crimes yet your bound to get less time for these than many of the new crimes that we invent. When you can take a life and get less time than for taking their money the society you live in has a serious problem.
That's like comparing apples to soda cans, which has never been very effective. That aside, a little bit of digging shows that your assumption that financial crimes are receiving higher jail terms/sentences is a bit flawed (the 'other' category is the one of interest here).
funny how many of the people who will complain about computer crime are all for having the government take stuff from other people.
And a retail bank statement is kindergarten arithmetic compared with the monthly statement for a private banking client. Indeed, Mr. Wyser-Pratte said that the statements have become so complicated not even a Wall Street veteran like himself could detect the continuing theft.
"I kept complaining that the bank's records showed I was overdrawn when I shouldn't be," he said. Each time, he was assured that the statement was accurate, even if he could not decipher it.
That second paragraph cues me in that he DID complain, and was given a runaround and no real answers.
Next time, try reading the article.
Or for critical reading, read the cut-n-paste
And a retail bank statement is kindergarten arithmetic compared with the monthly statement for a private banking client. Indeed, Mr. Wyser-Pratte said that the statements have become so complicated not even a Wall Street veteran like himself could detect the continuing theft.
"I kept complaining that the bank's records showed I was overdrawn when I shouldn't be," he said. Each time, he was assured that the statement was accurate, even if he could not decipher it.
That second paragraph cues me in that he DID complain, and was given a runaround and no real answers.
And the balances/overdrafts/were/ correct - the money was being legitimately withdrawn. It is the accountholder's responsibility to ensure he understands what he's getting in the mail every month (either on his own, or via an accountant if necessary). It can't be any other way - kind of like not reading a cell phone compnay contract, then complaining 12 months later when you realize that you agreed to a $200 early termination fee.
Well, McCain bowed to the christian fundamentalist wing of the GOP when he picked Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If he's willing to do that now, what makes you think he won't cave in the future?
You think? I figure he's pandering to those pissed-off former Hillary voters who refuse to vote for Obama on principle, but still want to see a woman in the presidential office. It's the only thing that makes sense; there's few others to convince since everyone else has pretty much made up their minds from the start.
THe unfortunate thing here is that (to my layman's reading of the ruling) the judge is right. As the law is written (remember, all they can do is interpret the law):
"all viruses, serums, toxins, . . . or
analogous products . .."
Certainyl this isn't a virus, serum, toxin, etc, and you wouldn't think it's an analogous product... but analogous product is defined as "... substances . . . which are intended for use in the treatment of animals through the detection or measurement of antigens, antibodies, nucleic acids, or immunity". And "treatment" is defined as "âoeprevention, diagnosis, management, or cure of diseases of animals.â
So while logically it makes no sense that someone can't test their cattle all they want, as the law is written they can't. The problem here is that the law is foolish; but the judge can't change that.
For that kind of change, we must rely on our corporate congress-purchasing overlords.
d) removing somebody who is unable to keep up their end of a social contract from a society, thus preventing them from doing so again for a period of time.
How about: when you tell that guy your password, he types it on the computer, which compares it to a hashed (and salted, please!) value in the database. There we go. It wasn't that hard, was it?
As you mention, you have to tell it to him anyway. Also, do you want to be the one to spell the password three different times because it's either a weird password, or the person you're speaking to doesn't have English as their first language?
So, better yet, how about making you type it on the phone pad? Then their PBX can extract any such keypresses and send them directly to the computer. There is no need for the human operator to ever hear or read that sequence.
Sure, though that means that a given password is now that much easier to be compromised - an attacker only has to know the sequence of numbers pressed (easily observed watching over someone's shoulder - ever seen how careless people are with their PINs?), and not the actual password. THis doesn't get into the usability issues that you'd be imposing on your customers.
So basically, you can jolly well stop pretending that crap security is anything else. Yes, it may require some 5 minutes of thinking to solve those problems, but they _are_ solvable.
The common security practices that exist now are anything but foolproof, but they do generally represent the best available crossover between usability and protection.
Tens of thousands of collective hours of thought have been given to this problem over a period of decades, because fraud costs banks huge money. Do you really think you're going to solve it in five minutes?
Uhm..what?! You don't store passwords in plain text, full stop. One-time passwords, alright. Generate one based on your bank card, and give it to the operator. It can't be used again. But a regular password? No way.
It's more like "mother's maiden name" it sounds like, which is slowly getting replaced with "mother's maiden name or password" in the credit card industry. It's a keyword/phrase that you give to the phone rep to identify yourself; by definition they must be able to see it as well. This is no different than the first tier of verification used when you call in for credit card service.
I think a subset of Catholics do as you describe - I've known several catholics who do make a distinction between venerate and worship. That is, they treat [the idea of] Mary with great reverence, but they don't expect her to grant prayers. To me, that's the difference.
I agree that venerate is a subset of worship as coma is a subset of sleep; but a subset is not the same as a distinction without a difference.
Ah, yep - gone back and checked, and noticed the same think with the idle stylesheet. And taking more than four seconds to think of a smart-ass comment/is/ too much work - it can interrupt the flow and ruin the 'zing' factor...
Having the database enforce RI requires foreign and primary key indices. WHile this isn't the only way to enforce integrity (your applications can do it too), it's nearly always going to be the most efficient.
Yep, that's a quote, which I figured would be obvious since it was in GP's post;) It does correctly show up as a quote now, but earlier I did see it wasn't for some reason. Odd.
Well - not as a full time job. Let's say... 80 hours a year.
Wandering somewhat offtopic here, but but I do think that if community service (including political offices) were required for citizenship rights, it would make for a much more common-sense oriented government.
Am I the only one that always gets a chuckle out of these disclaimers? The 'obvious reasons' always seem to boil down to a) don't want to go through the karmic trauma of being modded down or b) persecution complex.
Intriguing idea; taking into account corporations, the number would work out to less than $10k a year. Prohibiting use of public services seems a bit extreme - perhaps instead being required to serve in a public office for a certain number of hours...
Now/that/ would make for some interesting policy and law changes...
I'm not sure why I'm bothering since you chose to completely ignore the first half of my statement... but oh well.
Anyway - since when is anecdotal evidence of a few people taking unreasonable bonuses (which they do get taxed mightily for) sufficient proof for the kind of generalization you're making? You may not like it (I know don't), but we do live in a consumerist society. That means that if people have less money with which to consume, there will be fewer jobs./That's/ the first correlation. The second one is even more simple: even with those cut jobs, even that unscrupulous bastard taking the bonus has created far more jobs in his lifetime than the other 90% of the population ever will.
A larger slice seems pretty fair since the odds are, they would not have gotten where they were without the help of some social service somewhere along the line.
Ah, back to my first point. So the CEO of BigCo hypothetically pays only 20% in taxes. That's still several millions of dollars every year that one person is paying - and that does not count the corporate taxes themselves. How is Mr BigCo/not/ paying a larger slice than you or me again?
It's very easy those of us without money to say that people with money should give it away. Not particularly reasonable, but easy. And best of all, they should give that money to the government - because time and time again, the government has proven how capable they are of handling the public's money in a responsible manner.
I don't disagree. The point (for me) is more that the term "cloud computing" itself has been over-used as a buzzword to promote this 'new' idea, while the underlying technologies have actually been around for years.
Well no, it would tax them the same, because taxes are a per-unit thing. The fact that rich people have more units doesn't mean they're taxed more (on a flat-tax system, our current progressive one actually does tax them more).
If someone makes $1m, and they manage to pay "only" 10%, then they've paid $100,000. If someone makes 100k and they pay a "higher" rate of 20%, they're paying 20k.
There's little logic in using percentage as an indicator of value of taxes paid. The government doesn't spend percentage points - it spends currency.
There is no necessary correlation between a person's income and their productivity
But there is often a correlation between their income, and the number of jobs they create directly (employees, etc) and indirectly (service and manufacturing jobs to support consumers).
Slashdot Mirror
If we keep raising the liability issue with these companies, may be we can get their venture capital to dry up. Just a thought.
Nah - we just get harder-to-read privacy policies.
I am so tired of people always screaming for long prison terms. The priorities people have make me sad. It used to be that murder and rape were considered the worst crimes yet your bound to get less time for these than many of the new crimes that we invent. When you can take a life and get less time than for taking their money the society you live in has a serious problem.
That's like comparing apples to soda cans, which has never been very effective. That aside, a little bit of digging shows that your assumption that financial crimes are receiving higher jail terms/sentences is a bit flawed (the 'other' category is the one of interest here).
funny how many of the people who will complain about computer crime are all for having the government take stuff from other people.
Um, huh? What's this relevant to?
Next time, try reading the article.
Or for critical reading, read the cut-n-paste
That second paragraph cues me in that he DID complain, and was given a runaround and no real answers.
Next time, try reading the article.
Or for critical reading, read the cut-n-paste
That second paragraph cues me in that he DID complain, and was given a runaround and no real answers.
And the balances/overdrafts /were/ correct - the money was being legitimately withdrawn. It is the accountholder's responsibility to ensure he understands what he's getting in the mail every month (either on his own, or via an accountant if necessary). It can't be any other way - kind of like not reading a cell phone compnay contract, then complaining 12 months later when you realize that you agreed to a $200 early termination fee.
Why are not banks responsible for fraud?
Is it not the bank's responsibility to maintain security and keep secure transactions?
Should it not be the account owner's responsibility to be aware of who he gives his routing and account number to?
Well, McCain bowed to the christian fundamentalist wing of the GOP when he picked Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If he's willing to do that now, what makes you think he won't cave in the future?
You think? I figure he's pandering to those pissed-off former Hillary voters who refuse to vote for Obama on principle, but still want to see a woman in the presidential office. It's the only thing that makes sense; there's few others to convince since everyone else has pretty much made up their minds from the start.
What is your position on pussy?
The preferred position is not /on/ it at all...
On what grounds would it be pulled off of YouTube?
Grounds? Youtube takes down anything whenever *anyone* sends something that vaguely (really) resembles a proper DMCA takedown notice.
And they'll put it back up too, if the person who's content was pulled submits anything resembling a proper counter-notice.
"all viruses, serums, toxins, . . . or analogous products . . ."
Certainyl this isn't a virus, serum, toxin, etc, and you wouldn't think it's an analogous product... but analogous product is defined as "... substances . . . which are intended for use in the treatment of animals through the detection or measurement of antigens, antibodies, nucleic acids, or immunity". And "treatment" is defined as "âoeprevention, diagnosis, management, or cure of diseases of animals.â
So while logically it makes no sense that someone can't test their cattle all they want, as the law is written they can't. The problem here is that the law is foolish; but the judge can't change that.
For that kind of change, we must rely on our corporate congress-purchasing overlords.
MOD PARENT FUNNY!!!
only if you feel like it...please? :)
I DID!!! JUST ON YOUR SAY-SO!
Aw, damn.
d) removing somebody who is unable to keep up their end of a social contract from a society, thus preventing them from doing so again for a period of time.
How about: when you tell that guy your password, he types it on the computer, which compares it to a hashed (and salted, please!) value in the database. There we go. It wasn't that hard, was it?
As you mention, you have to tell it to him anyway. Also, do you want to be the one to spell the password three different times because it's either a weird password, or the person you're speaking to doesn't have English as their first language?
So, better yet, how about making you type it on the phone pad? Then their PBX can extract any such keypresses and send them directly to the computer. There is no need for the human operator to ever hear or read that sequence.
Sure, though that means that a given password is now that much easier to be compromised - an attacker only has to know the sequence of numbers pressed (easily observed watching over someone's shoulder - ever seen how careless people are with their PINs?), and not the actual password. THis doesn't get into the usability issues that you'd be imposing on your customers.
So basically, you can jolly well stop pretending that crap security is anything else. Yes, it may require some 5 minutes of thinking to solve those problems, but they _are_ solvable.
The common security practices that exist now are anything but foolproof, but they do generally represent the best available crossover between usability and protection.
Tens of thousands of collective hours of thought have been given to this problem over a period of decades, because fraud costs banks huge money. Do you really think you're going to solve it in five minutes?
Uhm..what?! You don't store passwords in plain text, full stop. One-time passwords, alright. Generate one based on your bank card, and give it to the operator. It can't be used again. But a regular password? No way.
It's more like "mother's maiden name" it sounds like, which is slowly getting replaced with "mother's maiden name or password" in the credit card industry. It's a keyword/phrase that you give to the phone rep to identify yourself; by definition they must be able to see it as well. This is no different than the first tier of verification used when you call in for credit card service.
I agree that venerate is a subset of worship as coma is a subset of sleep; but a subset is not the same as a distinction without a difference.
Ah, yep - gone back and checked, and noticed the same think with the idle stylesheet. And taking more than four seconds to think of a smart-ass comment /is/ too much work - it can interrupt the flow and ruin the 'zing' factor...
Having the database enforce RI requires foreign and primary key indices. WHile this isn't the only way to enforce integrity (your applications can do it too), it's nearly always going to be the most efficient.
Wait - she was added at the age of -2?!
In the case of Mary, I understand the word is "venerate" not "worship".
Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
Oh, you mean in the same way that there's no difference between 'sleep' and 'coma'?
Yep, that's a quote, which I figured would be obvious since it was in GP's post ;) It does correctly show up as a quote now, but earlier I did see it wasn't for some reason. Odd.
Wandering somewhat offtopic here, but but I do think that if community service (including political offices) were required for citizenship rights, it would make for a much more common-sense oriented government.
Posted AC for obvious reasons.
Am I the only one that always gets a chuckle out of these disclaimers? The 'obvious reasons' always seem to boil down to a) don't want to go through the karmic trauma of being modded down or b) persecution complex.
Now /that/ would make for some interesting policy and law changes...
Maybe my wife works night shift, you insensitive clod!
Anyway - since when is anecdotal evidence of a few people taking unreasonable bonuses (which they do get taxed mightily for) sufficient proof for the kind of generalization you're making? You may not like it (I know don't), but we do live in a consumerist society. That means that if people have less money with which to consume, there will be fewer jobs. /That's/ the first correlation. The second one is even more simple: even with those cut jobs, even that unscrupulous bastard taking the bonus has created far more jobs in his lifetime than the other 90% of the population ever will.
A larger slice seems pretty fair since the odds are, they would not have gotten where they were without the help of some social service somewhere along the line.
Ah, back to my first point. So the CEO of BigCo hypothetically pays only 20% in taxes. That's still several millions of dollars every year that one person is paying - and that does not count the corporate taxes themselves. How is Mr BigCo /not/ paying a larger slice than you or me again?
It's very easy those of us without money to say that people with money should give it away. Not particularly reasonable, but easy. And best of all, they should give that money to the government - because time and time again, the government has proven how capable they are of handling the public's money in a responsible manner.
I don't disagree. The point (for me) is more that the term "cloud computing" itself has been over-used as a buzzword to promote this 'new' idea, while the underlying technologies have actually been around for years.
Well no, it would tax them the same, because taxes are a per-unit thing. The fact that rich people have more units doesn't mean they're taxed more (on a flat-tax system, our current progressive one actually does tax them more).
If someone makes $1m, and they manage to pay "only" 10%, then they've paid $100,000. If someone makes 100k and they pay a "higher" rate of 20%, they're paying 20k.
There's little logic in using percentage as an indicator of value of taxes paid. The government doesn't spend percentage points - it spends currency.
There is no necessary correlation between a person's income and their productivity
But there is often a correlation between their income, and the number of jobs they create directly (employees, etc) and indirectly (service and manufacturing jobs to support consumers).