Well.. he started out with this story as a premise and it had lots of real hard SF promise about the implications ethical, practical, psychological, both for the transplantee and the people around them... , but then the book mostly ended up just being about fucking everything that moved. Not his best work, and its not the only Heinlein book that fell off the rails like that either.
Nobody forced him to make the claim that he was going to close Gitmo.
So everything would have been right as rain if he had pledged to 'sincerely try' instead of 'do' ? Seriously?
If he wasn't prepared to set any prisoners free that couldn't be charged with a real crime and incarcerated elsewhere, then he shouldn't have said that he was going to close the place.
Lets say he was prepared to do that. Still wouldn't have made a difference... congress wasn't going to let him do that. Not in a million years.
And unlike the career politicians he's actually followed through on his promises so far. Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.
WTF?
Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that? Because a lot of people count that as a "broken promise".
It would be a pretty hypocritical that Trump gets credit for "following through on his promises" by introducing a completely stillborn turd of a bill that his own party wouldn't pass.
Or would you have called Obama a success if instead of he'd introduced a bill to just shut it down while boasting... "I'm the best negotiator, its the best bill you'll ever see, everyone is going to love it." then two weeks later when its obviously garbage and not going to pass even his own party... he withdraws it and says, "I made the effort. now we're just going to keep it open. So there. Oh... and Mitch McConnell now owns it. It's 100% his problem now."
Those aren't errors in the GPS, but the data it's working with.
I'm curious what you'd rank as an 'error in the GPS'. I completely glossed over other classes of 'error'; such as the GPS guessing which way you are facing on a road when you start a trip so you drive six feet and then it recalculates a new route based on the fact that you are going the other direction but that's just 'bad data too'. Or then there are the times its positional reckoning is off -- so it tells you to turn but you are actually a block away from where it thinks you are but that's just 'bad data' too.
Are those errors in the GPS, Or in the data its working from...it seems to be a distiction without a difference to me.
We validate what the GPS is telling us to do, but we don't ignore it's instructions and plan our own path. If one can't turn left, they pass the turn and wait for the GPS to figure things out.
As often as not, it simply reroutes you around the block back to the same intersection you couldn't use the first time. If you are lucky it'll at least have you approach it from a new angle so you can legally turn... i've been unlucky on many occasions. And if the road is simply closed for construction or something you are boned when it does that.
If you can't get in the correct lane in time, again, no panic, just keep driving until the GPS recalculates.
Yeah, that's usually where the GPS starts insisting you make illegal U-turns at major intersections, or emergency vehicle access roads, etc...
Anyone who has been navigated by gps system though knows they make mistakes all the time. from failing to be sufficiently clear, to directing you to make a left turn across a busy 9 lane highway, to sending you down a side-street with speedbumps instead of the main street one block over, to telling you to turn left at 3pm at an intersection that is only legal to turn left at after 6:30pm... to pulling a u-turn on a divided highway...etc etc.
I don't dispute you though... because people DO seem to turn their brains off, but it makes no sense because we KNOW the computer can screw up too and will.
Heh, the under-staffed supreme court the president still needs to appoint a judge into. Talk about a farce... where you get to appoint the judge who judges you.
Your quite right, flying is a PITA and a huge waste of time in general.
But sometimes, no, a video call just doesn't mean a fraction of what 'boots on the ground' means when you want to close a deal; or otherwise make an appearance.
And also for personal reasons... I know lots of people who have made 5 hour flights to attend a wedding or funeral and then flown back home the same day too. And getting some work done on the plane was part of making that 'work'.
Day trips to Jordan? Short hops to Turkey? Did you even read the summary?
Did you even read the title?
"UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced"
From the UK, Turkey and Jordan are well within the range of a day trip for a businessman. You can catch a 6am flight, be in Turkey for lunch, attend meetings; do dinner with a vendor, and then fly home again in the evening. Or perhaps fly from Turkey to Italy or vienna, crash in a hotel, and attend a 2 day conference there before flying home... really this isn't exactly implausible.
small personal space when they whip up their laptop to do that presentation they should have done 2 weeks ago in the office.
Or they flew into London for a 2 day conference, then had a dinner meeting blowing their evening; but they plan to catch up their email, and review tweak the presentation they DID write 2 weeks ago in the office that they are presenting to a supplier straight after they land and want it fresh in their head because that's what a prepared person would do.
First the airlines crow about giving us internet access on flights, and then they take away our laptops?
There was a time not all that long ago when laptops didn't exist and you couldn't do that kind of work anyway
Wha? Did you just watch a movie where they just drank cocktails and screwed flight attendants? Where are you getting your information? In the 'long-ago before-time' they had briefcases with paperwork in them, and they'd review presentations, read and annotate contracts, write notes, review financial reports and ledgers, and do all sorts of work while in flight...
Taking away laptops in 2017 actually gives them less ability to do work in flight than they could have done in 1970 because now the contracts and presentations, charts, and graphs are on the laptop instead of in a folder.
It's not like coach...
Wait... What? So first class and business class are allowed to have their laptops; its just coach that has to sit there twiddling their thumbs. And what are you talking about... a modern ultrabook is lighter and less bulky then the folders of paper etc people used to carry around.
Everyone doing short hops / day trips for business is going to howl... that's basically their entire luggage. One laptop bag. Now they have to all pack them and check them? That's a huge waste of their time.
And everyone doing long hauls and bigger trips - the laptop is the entertainment for the cabin, to get work done in the cabin, and above all nobody wants to put their several thousand dollars relatively fragile laptop in checked baggage where the TSA gorillas and baggage handlers will either play frisbee with it or just steal it.
How is anyone ok with putting up with this nonsense?
There's a TON of digital currencies and other schemes and ventures out there; say you bought 100 'shares' of each of them, your 'bitcoin gains'... might offset your losses elsewhere or not.
When the winning move is to bet on the right scheme/venture...well... good luck with that.
If you can do that reliably, let us know which penny stock or startup will be a billion dollar company in a few years. Because the odds are about as good.
The only thing new about these "drones" is that someone else did all the hard work already.
Which means that instead of a handful of enthusiasts who have spent large portions of their lives in the RC aircraft community it's now hundreds of thousands of random idiots who got one under the christmas tree who know absolutely nothing at all about the RC aircraft hobby and community, who haven't even read the owners manual...
Like getting to the end of a race track cannot ever happen. To get to the end you first have to get 1/2 the way there. To get to the half way point, you first must get to the 1/4 point. To get there, you must first get to the 1/8 point. You have an infinite number of steps to get from the start to the end so there are always more steps between and you can never complete it
This is one of Zeno's Paradoxes and it is shown to be false basically because of calculus.
"Basically because of calculus" is the most hand-wavy excuse. The REASON you can reach the end of a race track is that the time to complete 'each 1/2 step' converges to zero. What if we added some 'overhead' so the time per step didn't converge to zero... then what happens? Say we add the requirement that you stop for 0.1 seconds each time you traverse another "1/2 of the remainder", now how long will it take to cross the finish line?
Answer: You won't finish. Now it WILL take infinite time.
So saying you cannot complete an infinite number of steps in a finite amount of time is wrong!
If the iterations converge to requiring zero time to complete then maybe you can complete an infinite series of them in a finite amount of time. Otherwise... nope. Forget it.
"Part of the problem with Teamviewer is that after being installed it usually runs after every startup so those security holes are always open to anything that can get as far as your PC."
Nope. That's only if you install the full teamviewer app; most people doing legitimate remote support with it with clients etc have the client run TeamViewerQS ("QS = QuickSupport); this (unlike the full teamviewer) only runs when it is explicitly run, only accepts incoming control sessions (intead of outgoing and meetings etc).
It also requires no additional licensing for commercial use; and allows for corporate branding etc... so it can display your logo, and they allow you to distribute it with your software or from your website etc.
In my experience with it, virtually all vendors of software that use teamviewer for their remote support have give you the "QS" version.
You probably had some problem such as firewall software in the way which made such an otherwise utterly trivial task difficult
The reason a lot of people like TV more than VNC is that VNC pretty much always has "some problem such as firewall" that needs to be sorted out, and TV pretty much always just works.
So on the scale of 'simpler to setup and use' TV generally ranks as excellent, and VNC usually ranks as "Did Not Finish... due to 'some problem'."
plus there has been around twenty years to shake out the bugs.
Which is great, but it lacks a lot of features remote support technicians find useful. chat, file transfer, leave a note, etc. Not to mention getting it through some random clients firewall usually runs into "some problem" so it doesn't work and wasting time on 'firewall problems' to get VNC working usually takes long than the original problem would have.
If TeamViewer is not going to deal with the scamming problem, take it to the next level and sever the connection.
faceplam.
The only reason they are using Teamviewer is that it works pretty good. The scammers could switch tomorrow to another remote support tool. Or a VNC based tool with a preconfigured reverse connection; hosted from anywhere, connecting to anywhere... they could even keep calling it teamviewer... they're scammers so honesty isn't a pre-req.
Teamviewer is not a 'hacking tool' and it is not a 'scamming tool' any more than a 'telephone' is a scamming tool. Or the TalkTalk ISP itself is. Blocking teamviewer because people are using it as part of the scam would be almost as idiotic as blocking these customers from reaching their banks. "Well if their bank isn't going to deal with the scamming problem, we'll just stop letting people connect to their banks online.. "
Better still TalkTalk should cut off the customers TalkTalk internet access -- that's where the real problem is anyway. Since TalkTalk apparently lost a bunch of customer data / records allowing the scammers to sound a lot more convincingly like they are calling from talktalk. Whoops.
I'm curious what you think Teamviewer should do about the problem. Or Microsoft. Or apple (because they aren't immune from a scam like this...) or even your grandma you stuck on linux mint or is the fact that your grandma can get scammed by someone pretending to work for TalkTalk while running linux mint somehow Torvalds fault?
Teamviewer (and VNC) run on all three platforms, and as long as the scammer doesn't say he's calling from "Windows" but instead is calling from their (Actual) ISP TalkTalk...
Steam gift cards would both be solid hits for them, but I'm not sure that's generally applicable.
My daughter could make use of an itunes card, she has an iphone... but there's nothing really she wants to buy from the ios app store as we monitor their purchases and they ask for stuff from steam all the time... but almost never from the appstore. My son doesn't have an idevice, and his taste in music is mostly video game soundtracks... that come with games he bought on steam. or he'll pull up a track on youtube if he just wants to hear something one-off. He'd never buy music from itunes... he re-gifted his last itunes card.
Meanwhile, the girls next door are both idevice fans, hiphop fans, etc... so would get a lot of mileage out of itunes. But I almost doubt the girls next door would know what a steam gift card was even for:/
Seriusly... think about it. The gaurdian doesn't even bother to mention the Attenborough (the host ship) until 6 paragraphs in. But Boaty McBoatface is on the HEADLINE.
Nobody but an enthusiast gives a shit about the ship named RRS Sir David Attenborough. But regular people genuinely want to hear about and to read about the adventures of Boaty McBoatface adventures. They want to tell their children stories about Boaty McBoatface.
The NERC had a real chance to grab the public's interest, and they almost completely blew it, and the burned a lot of goodwill with what they did, but letting the absurdity of Boaty McBoatface stay with the project even to the limited extent that they did all but guarantees them headlines for years to come, and people will click on them to hear what 'Boaty' is up to.
- a base32 encoded 128bit pure random number. It's mathematically provable to be secure (if done by a cryptography-grade true random number generated, it's a 2^128 security, which is pretty good enough). But it's a 25 character long string of alaphanumeric. So it's not mixed case, and doesn't contain punctuation so it will be rejected by most stupid rules (also some rules have size specified as a range [9 to 16 characters], not a minimum [more than 8]. This will also reject a 25-long password).
So? Take your base32 encoded 128bit pure random number and add A1! to the end. Now its a provably secure password that follows the rule. I don't really see the issue; people with password generators and password vaults don't really have a problem here.
even a complex rule set (Mixed case, must contain numbers and punctiation, at least 9 characters long) will usually give results such as "Denver17!"
"Denver17!" is better than "denver" which is what that person would have used without the rule.
As such, no matter what, rules are a bad idea.
I disagree. Denver17! is better than denver, and the guy with a password generator can add A1!. They rules don't make the passwords much better, but they are better and they don't make them worse.
Here are some additional password rules, which you didn't cover but which are a good idea:
a) The password may not contain the username (so admin / admin is out; as is admin / admin123!
See, here's the obvious thing that people don't seem to understand:
On the other hand, that just turns a security hole into a pointless and tedious exercise. Instead of one password for the site, now I have to generate 6.
And some of those sites will pull shit like.. "We haven't seen you from this browser before"... now that you've successfully entered your password... "What was your first car?"
So you have to keep all 6 stored away.
Plus if you ever lose your primary password store, you've also lost the recovery mechanism. You aren't completely exposed now but its not really win for you either.
If you have tax payers pay for roads that are used and restricted like private roads, lots of people who don't benefit from those designations end up paying for the private roads, and mostly private roads of people who live in affluent parts of the town/city
Any cite to back that theory up? A few feet of pavement on a residential street that only gets local traffic doesn't require all that much maintenance nor is the initial construction cost all that big. Meanwhile the 'affluent residents' are paying significantly higher property taxes.
Are you sure its not actually the other way around. I propose that their property taxes not only more than cover the few feet of pavement in front of them, but also subsidize a bunch of arterial roads.
The city is paying 76 million to upgrade 3.1 km of highway (widen and add center meridian, and an overpass). The shared arterial infrastructure is where the costs are, the residential streets are peanuts by comparison.
Put it this way... 76 million could buy 120 houses for $600,000 each...with money left over. The money "left over" would still be more than enough to build the 1 km of residential road to access them several times over.
If you want to limit the use of those streets in that way, then they should be private roads, paid for by only the residents of that street.
You are welcome to drive on the street. You just can't use it as a commuter bypass for the highway. Its a restriction on how you use the public resource... like the speed limit, or a 'one way' designation'. And it applies to everyone using the street.
; that doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that voters will tolerate this behavior indefinitely.
The voters absolutely will 'tolerate' it. They requested it, and they voted for it. They want the residential streets to be used as residential access only. The residents ARE the voters.
The people using their residential streets as a hyway bypass... are the ones that DON'T live there... and they don't get to vote on the traffic shaping in communities they don't own property in. That's kind of how it works.
No they are not. Public roads are for use by all, not by a select few.
They are for use by all *for* a specific purpose. And in the case of side residential streets that specific purpose is for public to access the residences on that street.
They were not built as a highway bypass routes. That's not what they are for, just as you can't live in a motorhome in a public park. The fact that it is a public space doesn't mean you can use it however you want, in any way you want.
There aren't restrictions imposed on most residential streets to force the issue because its hasn't historically been a major problem. A few cars going through is fine. But there have been streets downtown in my city with 'local traffic only' signs on them for years, and you could be ticketed for commuting through them, and other places where barriers erected all over the place to turn a grid into a maze to discourage 'through traffic'. This is how society has dealt with it in the past when its been a problem.
Expect to see these solutions expanded.
It is not within a few citizens' "rights" to deny others use of taxpayer-funded public roads.
It has always been within the publics rights to designate usage restrictions on public spaces. Greenspaces are designated as parks, playgrounds, bike paths, walking only paths without bikes, off leash areas... on leash areas.
Roads are the same. They aren't all equal. They are for different things. IF the usage deviates from the intented usage, you should absolutely expect clarification, and then enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. he started out with this story as a premise and it had lots of real hard SF promise about the implications ethical, practical, psychological, both for the transplantee and the people around them... , but then the book mostly ended up just being about fucking everything that moved. Not his best work, and its not the only Heinlein book that fell off the rails like that either.
Nobody forced him to make the claim that he was going to close Gitmo.
So everything would have been right as rain if he had pledged to 'sincerely try' instead of 'do' ? Seriously?
If he wasn't prepared to set any prisoners free that couldn't be charged with a real crime and incarcerated elsewhere, then he shouldn't have said that he was going to close the place.
Lets say he was prepared to do that. Still wouldn't have made a difference... congress wasn't going to let him do that. Not in a million years.
And unlike the career politicians he's actually followed through on his promises so far. Failure to repeal Obamacare is not a lie. He made the effort.
WTF?
Obama "made the effort" to close Gitmo throughout his whole presidency, does he get credit for that?
Because a lot of people count that as a "broken promise".
It would be a pretty hypocritical that Trump gets credit for "following through on his promises" by introducing a completely stillborn turd of a bill that his own party wouldn't pass.
Or would you have called Obama a success if instead of he'd introduced a bill to just shut it down while boasting... "I'm the best negotiator, its the best bill you'll ever see, everyone is going to love it."
then two weeks later when its obviously garbage and not going to pass even his own party... he withdraws it and says, "I made the effort. now we're just going to keep it open. So there. Oh... and Mitch McConnell now owns it. It's 100% his problem now."
Those aren't errors in the GPS, but the data it's working with.
I'm curious what you'd rank as an 'error in the GPS'. I completely glossed over other classes of 'error'; such as the GPS guessing which way you are facing on a road when you start a trip so you drive six feet and then it recalculates a new route based on the fact that you are going the other direction but that's just 'bad data too'. Or then there are the times its positional reckoning is off -- so it tells you to turn but you are actually a block away from where it thinks you are but that's just 'bad data' too.
Are those errors in the GPS, Or in the data its working from...it seems to be a distiction without a difference to me.
We validate what the GPS is telling us to do, but we don't ignore it's instructions and plan our own path. If one can't turn left, they pass the turn and wait for the GPS to figure things out.
As often as not, it simply reroutes you around the block back to the same intersection you couldn't use the first time. If you are lucky it'll at least have you approach it from a new angle so you can legally turn... i've been unlucky on many occasions. And if the road is simply closed for construction or something you are boned when it does that.
If you can't get in the correct lane in time, again, no panic, just keep driving until the GPS recalculates.
Yeah, that's usually where the GPS starts insisting you make illegal U-turns at major intersections, or emergency vehicle access roads, etc...
Anyone who has been navigated by gps system though knows they make mistakes all the time. from failing to be sufficiently clear, to directing you to make a left turn across a busy 9 lane highway, to sending you down a side-street with speedbumps instead of the main street one block over, to telling you to turn left at 3pm at an intersection that is only legal to turn left at after 6:30pm... to pulling a u-turn on a divided highway...etc etc.
I don't dispute you though... because people DO seem to turn their brains off, but it makes no sense because we KNOW the computer can screw up too and will.
Heh, the under-staffed supreme court the president still needs to appoint a judge into. Talk about a farce... where you get to appoint the judge who judges you.
Your quite right, flying is a PITA and a huge waste of time in general.
But sometimes, no, a video call just doesn't mean a fraction of what 'boots on the ground' means when you want to close a deal; or otherwise make an appearance.
And also for personal reasons... I know lots of people who have made 5 hour flights to attend a wedding or funeral and then flown back home the same day too. And getting some work done on the plane was part of making that 'work'.
Presumably the martians will pay for it.
Day trips to Jordan? Short hops to Turkey? Did you even read the summary?
Did you even read the title?
"UK Flight Ban On Devices To Be Announced"
From the UK, Turkey and Jordan are well within the range of a day trip for a businessman. You can catch a 6am flight, be in Turkey for lunch, attend meetings; do dinner with a vendor, and then fly home again in the evening. Or perhaps fly from Turkey to Italy or vienna, crash in a hotel, and attend a 2 day conference there before flying home... really this isn't exactly implausible.
small personal space when they whip up their laptop to do that presentation they should have done 2 weeks ago in the office.
Or they flew into London for a 2 day conference, then had a dinner meeting blowing their evening; but they plan to catch up their email, and review tweak the presentation they DID write 2 weeks ago in the office that they are presenting to a supplier straight after they land and want it fresh in their head because that's what a prepared person would do.
First the airlines crow about giving us internet access on flights, and then they take away our laptops?
There was a time not all that long ago when laptops didn't exist and you couldn't do that kind of work anyway
Wha? Did you just watch a movie where they just drank cocktails and screwed flight attendants? Where are you getting your information? In the 'long-ago before-time' they had briefcases with paperwork in them, and they'd review presentations, read and annotate contracts, write notes, review financial reports and ledgers, and do all sorts of work while in flight...
Taking away laptops in 2017 actually gives them less ability to do work in flight than they could have done in 1970 because now the contracts and presentations, charts, and graphs are on the laptop instead of in a folder.
It's not like coach...
Wait... What? So first class and business class are allowed to have their laptops; its just coach that has to sit there twiddling their thumbs. And what are you talking about... a modern ultrabook is lighter and less bulky then the folders of paper etc people used to carry around.
Wow... just nuts.
Everyone doing short hops / day trips for business is going to howl... that's basically their entire luggage. One laptop bag. Now they have to all pack them and check them? That's a huge waste of their time.
And everyone doing long hauls and bigger trips - the laptop is the entertainment for the cabin, to get work done in the cabin, and above all nobody wants to put their several thousand dollars relatively fragile laptop in checked baggage where the TSA gorillas and baggage handlers will either play frisbee with it or just steal it.
How is anyone ok with putting up with this nonsense?
There's a TON of digital currencies and other schemes and ventures out there; say you bought 100 'shares' of each of them, your 'bitcoin gains' ... might offset your losses elsewhere or not.
When the winning move is to bet on the right scheme/venture...well... good luck with that.
If you can do that reliably, let us know which penny stock or startup will be a billion dollar company in a few years. Because the odds are about as good.
hopefully the microwave wont be able to call home
Ummm... it has a microwave transmitter built in. It doesn't need wifi... it can talk to the satellites!!
The only thing new about these "drones" is that someone else did all the hard work already.
Which means that instead of a handful of enthusiasts who have spent large portions of their lives in the RC aircraft community it's now hundreds of thousands of random idiots who got one under the christmas tree who know absolutely nothing at all about the RC aircraft hobby and community, who haven't even read the owners manual...
Yeah, "So whats the difference?" Right?? /sarcasm
Like getting to the end of a race track cannot ever happen. To get to the end you first have to get 1/2 the way there. To get to the half way point, you first must get to the 1/4 point. To get there, you must first get to the 1/8 point. You have an infinite number of steps to get from the start to the end so there are always more steps between and you can never complete it
This is one of Zeno's Paradoxes and it is shown to be false basically because of calculus.
"Basically because of calculus" is the most hand-wavy excuse. The REASON you can reach the end of a race track is that the time to complete 'each 1/2 step' converges to zero. What if we added some 'overhead' so the time per step didn't converge to zero... then what happens? Say we add the requirement that you stop for 0.1 seconds each time you traverse another "1/2 of the remainder", now how long will it take to cross the finish line?
Answer: You won't finish. Now it WILL take infinite time.
So saying you cannot complete an infinite number of steps in a finite amount of time is wrong!
If the iterations converge to requiring zero time to complete then maybe you can complete an infinite series of them in a finite amount of time. Otherwise... nope. Forget it.
"Part of the problem with Teamviewer is that after being installed it usually runs after every startup so those security holes are always open to anything that can get as far as your PC."
Nope. That's only if you install the full teamviewer app; most people doing legitimate remote support with it with clients etc have the client run TeamViewerQS ("QS = QuickSupport); this (unlike the full teamviewer) only runs when it is explicitly run, only accepts incoming control sessions (intead of outgoing and meetings etc).
It also requires no additional licensing for commercial use; and allows for corporate branding etc ... so it can display your logo, and they allow you to distribute it with your software or from your website etc.
In my experience with it, virtually all vendors of software that use teamviewer for their remote support have give you the "QS" version.
You probably had some problem such as firewall software in the way which made such an otherwise utterly trivial task difficult
The reason a lot of people like TV more than VNC is that VNC pretty much always has "some problem such as firewall" that needs to be sorted out, and TV pretty much always just works.
So on the scale of 'simpler to setup and use' TV generally ranks as excellent, and VNC usually ranks as "Did Not Finish... due to 'some problem'."
plus there has been around twenty years to shake out the bugs.
Which is great, but it lacks a lot of features remote support technicians find useful. chat, file transfer, leave a note, etc. Not to mention getting it through some random clients firewall usually runs into "some problem" so it doesn't work and wasting time on 'firewall problems' to get VNC working usually takes long than the original problem would have.
If TeamViewer is not going to deal with the scamming problem, take it to the next level and sever the connection.
faceplam.
The only reason they are using Teamviewer is that it works pretty good. The scammers could switch tomorrow to another remote support tool. Or a VNC based tool with a preconfigured reverse connection; hosted from anywhere, connecting to anywhere... they could even keep calling it teamviewer... they're scammers so honesty isn't a pre-req.
Teamviewer is not a 'hacking tool' and it is not a 'scamming tool' any more than a 'telephone' is a scamming tool. Or the TalkTalk ISP itself is. Blocking teamviewer because people are using it as part of the scam would be almost as idiotic as blocking these customers from reaching their banks. "Well if their bank isn't going to deal with the scamming problem, we'll just stop letting people connect to their banks online.. "
Better still TalkTalk should cut off the customers TalkTalk internet access -- that's where the real problem is anyway. Since TalkTalk apparently lost a bunch of customer data / records allowing the scammers to sound a lot more convincingly like they are calling from talktalk. Whoops.
I'm curious what you think Teamviewer should do about the problem. Or Microsoft. Or apple (because they aren't immune from a scam like this...) or even your grandma you stuck on linux mint or is the fact that your grandma can get scammed by someone pretending to work for TalkTalk while running linux mint somehow Torvalds fault?
Teamviewer (and VNC) run on all three platforms, and as long as the scammer doesn't say he's calling from "Windows" but instead is calling from their (Actual) ISP TalkTalk...
Course you need to get the correct one...
Steam gift cards would both be solid hits for them, but I'm not sure that's generally applicable.
My daughter could make use of an itunes card, she has an iphone... but there's nothing really she wants to buy from the ios app store as we monitor their purchases and they ask for stuff from steam all the time... but almost never from the appstore. My son doesn't have an idevice, and his taste in music is mostly video game soundtracks ... that come with games he bought on steam. or he'll pull up a track on youtube if he just wants to hear something one-off. He'd never buy music from itunes... he re-gifted his last itunes card.
Meanwhile, the girls next door are both idevice fans, hiphop fans, etc... so would get a lot of mileage out of itunes. But I almost doubt the girls next door would know what a steam gift card was even for :/
I found with my kids, they actually just seemed to want to less stuff than a lot of kids their age.
Frankly, I think it went right.
Seriusly... think about it. The gaurdian doesn't even bother to mention the Attenborough (the host ship) until 6 paragraphs in. But Boaty McBoatface is on the HEADLINE.
Nobody but an enthusiast gives a shit about the ship named RRS Sir David Attenborough. But regular people genuinely want to hear about and to read about the adventures of Boaty McBoatface adventures. They want to tell their children stories about Boaty McBoatface.
The NERC had a real chance to grab the public's interest, and they almost completely blew it, and the burned a lot of goodwill with what they did, but letting the absurdity of Boaty McBoatface stay with the project even to the limited extent that they did all but guarantees them headlines for years to come, and people will click on them to hear what 'Boaty' is up to.
- a base32 encoded 128bit pure random number. It's mathematically provable to be secure (if done by a cryptography-grade true random number generated, it's a 2^128 security, which is pretty good enough). But it's a 25 character long string of alaphanumeric. So it's not mixed case, and doesn't contain punctuation so it will be rejected by most stupid rules (also some rules have size specified as a range [9 to 16 characters], not a minimum [more than 8]. This will also reject a 25-long password).
So? Take your base32 encoded 128bit pure random number and add A1! to the end. Now its a provably secure password that follows the rule. I don't really see the issue; people with password generators and password vaults don't really have a problem here.
even a complex rule set (Mixed case, must contain numbers and punctiation, at least 9 characters long) will usually give results such as "Denver17!"
"Denver17!" is better than "denver" which is what that person would have used without the rule.
As such, no matter what, rules are a bad idea.
I disagree. Denver17! is better than denver, and the guy with a password generator can add A1!. They rules don't make the passwords much better, but they are better and they don't make them worse.
Here are some additional password rules, which you didn't cover but which are a good idea:
a) The password may not contain the username
(so admin / admin is out; as is admin / admin123!
b) The password may not be on the top passwords list:
http://www.passwordrandom.com/...
c) The password may not be a single dictionary word
How are these rules "no matter what, a bad idea" ?
See, here's the obvious thing that people don't seem to understand:
On the other hand, that just turns a security hole into a pointless and tedious exercise. Instead of one password for the site, now I have to generate 6.
And some of those sites will pull shit like.. "We haven't seen you from this browser before"... now that you've successfully entered your password... "What was your first car?"
So you have to keep all 6 stored away.
Plus if you ever lose your primary password store, you've also lost the recovery mechanism. You aren't completely exposed now but its not really win for you either.
If you have tax payers pay for roads that are used and restricted like private roads, lots of people who don't benefit from those designations end up paying for the private roads, and mostly private roads of people who live in affluent parts of the town/city
Any cite to back that theory up? A few feet of pavement on a residential street that only gets local traffic doesn't require all that much maintenance nor is the initial construction cost all that big. Meanwhile the 'affluent residents' are paying significantly higher property taxes.
Are you sure its not actually the other way around. I propose that their property taxes not only more than cover the few feet of pavement in front of them, but also subsidize a bunch of arterial roads.
The city is paying 76 million to upgrade 3.1 km of highway (widen and add center meridian, and an overpass). The shared arterial infrastructure is where the costs are, the residential streets are peanuts by comparison.
Put it this way... 76 million could buy 120 houses for $600,000 each...with money left over. The money "left over" would still be more than enough to build the 1 km of residential road to access them several times over.
If you want to limit the use of those streets in that way, then they should be private roads, paid for by only the residents of that street.
You are welcome to drive on the street. You just can't use it as a commuter bypass for the highway. Its a restriction on how you use the public resource... like the speed limit, or a 'one way' designation'. And it applies to everyone using the street.
; that doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that voters will tolerate this behavior indefinitely.
The voters absolutely will 'tolerate' it. They requested it, and they voted for it. They want the residential streets to be used as residential access only. The residents ARE the voters.
The people using their residential streets as a hyway bypass... are the ones that DON'T live there... and they don't get to vote on the traffic shaping in communities they don't own property in. That's kind of how it works.
No they are not. Public roads are for use by all, not by a select few.
They are for use by all *for* a specific purpose. And in the case of side residential streets that specific purpose is for public to access the residences on that street.
They were not built as a highway bypass routes. That's not what they are for, just as you can't live in a motorhome in a public park. The fact that it is a public space doesn't mean you can use it however you want, in any way you want.
There aren't restrictions imposed on most residential streets to force the issue because its hasn't historically been a major problem. A few cars going through is fine. But there have been streets downtown in my city with 'local traffic only' signs on them for years, and you could be ticketed for commuting through them, and other places where barriers erected all over the place to turn a grid into a maze to discourage 'through traffic'. This is how society has dealt with it in the past when its been a problem.
Expect to see these solutions expanded.
It is not within a few citizens' "rights" to deny others use of taxpayer-funded public roads.
It has always been within the publics rights to designate usage restrictions on public spaces. Greenspaces are designated as parks, playgrounds, bike paths, walking only paths without bikes, off leash areas... on leash areas.
Roads are the same. They aren't all equal. They are for different things. IF the usage deviates from the intented usage, you should absolutely expect clarification, and then enforcement.