Given the number of breaches in various companies that have led to information being compromised, I think the better question is why do we let them store more information than absolutely necessary? There's no legitimate reason for Sony to be storing that information for most users. One could make a case for those that pay for PSN Plus, but for people who only buy a game now and again, there's absolutely no reason for them to store it. It's not that hard for people to type it in again.
I mean for heaven's sake, if GOG doesn't need to store credit card information to stay in business, why does Sony?
Contamination isn't normally an issue for kernel code, they can always cram it in its own corner of the code and not include it in binaries by default.
Without being involved with the discussions its hard to say, but I've personally found Linux filesystem code to be less than reliable. But there's also the issue of that it would have to pass their auditing to be included in the base install, there's a reason why they have so few base exploirts.
As long as you start a new box every year, you can just chuck the ones that are older than 3 years typically without having to worry too much about the consequences.
I personally use xplorer2 when on windows as my filemanager, and it's trivial to filter out things based upon name. Typically I'll name things by institution, account and date, sometimes if it's a receipt I'll append the item purchased. It's a bit of work, but it makes it a lot quicker to sort through those files.
This point troubles me a great deal. The IRS under normal circumstances has 3 years in which to conduct an audit of your tax forms in the US. But, most banks limit the duration of storing said records typically to a year if you're lucky, and often times even less than that. So, while it is ultimately your responsibility to make sure that you've got the records, if those files were to get corrupted after they were destroyed by the bank and before you receive the audit notification, you haven't really any way of actually backing up your claims.
Which is really, why one ought to keep a paper copy, and why banks ought to be required to keep such documents for longer periods of time. And preferably offer the ability to download an entire year's worth of records in a single.zip for easy organization.
IANAL, but I did sit on a jury for a rather long civil trial, and whether paper or electronic, somebody is going to be called to testify to the authenticity and completeness of any piece of evidence that they're wanting to submit. Just because it's paper doesn't mean that it's real and likewise just because it's electronic doesn't mean that it's suspect. I was personally frustrated by the great disparity in terms of opinions of evidence, to the extent that the attorneys couldn't seem to agree whether or not a particular photo was of the same thing they were referring to.
Which is a part of their jobs, particularly for the defense attorney, but it is somewhat annoying to those that have to weigh the evidence.
It is however advisable to keep a paper copy of anything that important anyways, just in case the electronic copy gets destroy and whatever backups you have as well. Which can happen. You can also accidentally destroy paper copies, but it's typically less likely, unless you're doing something like mass shredding or your house burns down, typically less common occurrences.
Right, but what I'm saying is that aren't any decent authoring programs, the ones referenced on their site are mostly out of date and no longer being worked on. Sure you can play them, but good luck actually making them as the tutorials and software to do so aren't particularly user friendly. I ended up giving up on that for backing up my DVDs and just store them as ISOs, at least with VLC and a few others I can just read those directly rather than have to screw around with a container format that I can't figure out.
Which is a shame, because I've really grown fond of MKA instead of the alternatives for storing albums.
Indeed, depending upon the number of documents, it's frequently better to just have a box or envelope per year, with everything in it for that time period. If you've got a lot, then moving to a per month or possibly per week file is a good idea. It's good because you've got it in chunk size bites. And if you do decide to digitize chances are that you can handle an entire months worth of papers on the first of the next month, but either way, you generally have a fair idea of when to look.
For items that are just FYI, I tend to just scan those and chuck the original. The files tend to just get stored on my HDD under an appropriate broad category with an informative title including date.
For items that are tax records, you're stuck either with a paper copy, or using an IRS approved scanning product. Which reminds me that I've misplaced mine.
But in general, I've found that it makes a lot more sense to store things chronologically, just holding out things that are definitely trash and definitely more appropriate elsewhere. That way, I can mostly shred the folder after a few years after a quick glance for anything that's still relevant.
The biggest problem folks have is getting overly elaborate, and this system is really as elaborate as you want to get, and probably could use some simplification.
I disagree, until the cookie management settings are fixed and made to be functional there really is no basis for consent being implied. What I mean is that yes, you do have settings that work, but they're cumbersome, lacking in granularity and typically don't really give you much control. Plus, they're complicated and unless you're a power user, you don't necessarily know what you're doing, or even what cookies ought to be allowed.
Same goes for random javascript, sites rarely if ever tell you what javascript is supposed to run on the site and what is mandatory to keep the site going. If you look at the list of a huge number of sites these days, facebook shows up there. There's a reason why facebook is pretty much the first thing I put on any black lists I'm creating.
I'm not aware of a setting to prevent the cookies from being read by other domains, but the settings to blacklist and whitelist cookies are typically not very good. I was doing that for a while with Firefox, and it was a huge pain. For some reason they decided to make it so that you end up having to either block everything or end up responding to hundreds of requests. And they won't let you edit a setting, no that would be too easy, if you change your mind about a setting you have to remove it then go back to that site, then make the correct decision. Which does little good if you just want to block every cookie from a domain except for the particular one that you need to use the site.
From my experience it tends to be that way for all the browsers, although it's been a while since I used any of the other ones and may have changed.
Slightly off topic, but does anything actually support MKV? I've looked around and while the codec is probably fine, in practice that's pointless as nobody is bothering to produce software to use it. I've seen a half dozen open source and free products included it, none of which are currently being worked on and none of which are actually useful without a ton of knowledge about the program.
There's a fair number of packages which can read the files, but unlike the MKAs which are pretty easy to do, the video component has been a serious pain.
I'm glad you're weighing in. I see these reports from time to time, and even today when I was sure that the memory being used by Firefox was going to be some ridiculous number, it ended up being 253mb. I'm always curious when people claim that their install has some sort of massive memory leak.
There is a free version which does quite well. But it does a lot more than just that. Plus, yes you can do all of that stuff by hand, however, unless you really have time to kill and are willing to spend a lot of time on tinkering, the cost of the paid version is likely less than the amount of time you'd spend researching it.
And, personally, I'm too lazy to bother constantly adjusting things like that and making sure to do the maintenance to keep things running well. Hence why apps like this exist. It's definitely not mandatory if you're willing to spend the time to do it your self. But then again, you technically don't need antivirus either, it's just much more convenient than refusing to connect to the internet.
Hmm, I'll have to try that. I'm migrating away from XP, but this sounds like just the thing for those times when I need to use a Win only app which doesn't run under Crossover. At this point, I pretty much am only using XP until I can finish my last set of backups, and install Linux.
I've tried a lot of optimization software over the years, but this is the one I've found that actually works as advertised: Advanced SystemCare 4
But, the thing is that in a corporate environment you're not likely to be allowed to install RAM or programs to deal with optimization. The best bet would be to prepare a report on how much time the OP is wasting waiting for the computer to respond and relate that to the cost of upgrading the hardware. That's really the best way of handling it in a business environment. They may still say no, but otherwise, why risk getting fired for screwing around with company property outside of the scope of work?
I take it you've never heard of Akamai, but beside that, it doesn't really help, as the toll is on the last mile, meaning that no matter where the content is being cached, at some point it has to go over that last mile, and that's what's being capped here.
As much as I've grown to despise Qwest over the years for being poor quality, slow and expensive, they don't have any caps at all on their service. The only limitation is what the pipe can handle at full capacity through the entire month.
You do have to adjust for the cost of living. But around here you can't get a connection like that without being an ISP. For home users a connection like that isn't available at any price which is really a huge part of the problem. People will swallow this change by AT&T, but it will be primarily because they haven't any other options apart from canceling service completely. And with more and more vital services moving online only, that's getting less and less viable all the time.
Saccharin doesn't cause cancer, hence why the FDA allowed the removal of the warning label. The link was never particularly strong and was based primarily on animal studies which didn't accurately model normal intake. Warning label removal
This is more or less precisely the sort of situation that I was thinking of. Sexual abuse is hard enough to cope with and recover from without the possibility of recordings and evidence sitting there for years past any hope of prosecuting the individuals, for other perverts to enjoy and take pleasure in.
The problem there is that you can't typically locate the provider without finding the people possessing. At that point, you've got the goods to prosecute people for possession and trading the materials, ignoring it at that point would be silly.
Now, if you've got some way of just getting straight to the source, I'm sure the FBI is open to suggestions.
The only issue I have with possession charges in all this is that there is no legal distinction between those that knowingly possess the stuff and those that accidentally download it, or who have it loaded onto their computer in some obscure directory by a cracker or somebody else.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the number of breaches in various companies that have led to information being compromised, I think the better question is why do we let them store more information than absolutely necessary? There's no legitimate reason for Sony to be storing that information for most users. One could make a case for those that pay for PSN Plus, but for people who only buy a game now and again, there's absolutely no reason for them to store it. It's not that hard for people to type it in again.
I mean for heaven's sake, if GOG doesn't need to store credit card information to stay in business, why does Sony?
Contamination isn't normally an issue for kernel code, they can always cram it in its own corner of the code and not include it in binaries by default.
Without being involved with the discussions its hard to say, but I've personally found Linux filesystem code to be less than reliable. But there's also the issue of that it would have to pass their auditing to be included in the base install, there's a reason why they have so few base exploirts.
As long as you start a new box every year, you can just chuck the ones that are older than 3 years typically without having to worry too much about the consequences.
I personally use xplorer2 when on windows as my filemanager, and it's trivial to filter out things based upon name. Typically I'll name things by institution, account and date, sometimes if it's a receipt I'll append the item purchased. It's a bit of work, but it makes it a lot quicker to sort through those files.
Presumably theirs a better way.
This point troubles me a great deal. The IRS under normal circumstances has 3 years in which to conduct an audit of your tax forms in the US. But, most banks limit the duration of storing said records typically to a year if you're lucky, and often times even less than that. So, while it is ultimately your responsibility to make sure that you've got the records, if those files were to get corrupted after they were destroyed by the bank and before you receive the audit notification, you haven't really any way of actually backing up your claims.
Which is really, why one ought to keep a paper copy, and why banks ought to be required to keep such documents for longer periods of time. And preferably offer the ability to download an entire year's worth of records in a single .zip for easy organization.
IANAL, but I did sit on a jury for a rather long civil trial, and whether paper or electronic, somebody is going to be called to testify to the authenticity and completeness of any piece of evidence that they're wanting to submit. Just because it's paper doesn't mean that it's real and likewise just because it's electronic doesn't mean that it's suspect. I was personally frustrated by the great disparity in terms of opinions of evidence, to the extent that the attorneys couldn't seem to agree whether or not a particular photo was of the same thing they were referring to.
Which is a part of their jobs, particularly for the defense attorney, but it is somewhat annoying to those that have to weigh the evidence.
It is however advisable to keep a paper copy of anything that important anyways, just in case the electronic copy gets destroy and whatever backups you have as well. Which can happen. You can also accidentally destroy paper copies, but it's typically less likely, unless you're doing something like mass shredding or your house burns down, typically less common occurrences.
Right, but what I'm saying is that aren't any decent authoring programs, the ones referenced on their site are mostly out of date and no longer being worked on. Sure you can play them, but good luck actually making them as the tutorials and software to do so aren't particularly user friendly. I ended up giving up on that for backing up my DVDs and just store them as ISOs, at least with VLC and a few others I can just read those directly rather than have to screw around with a container format that I can't figure out.
Which is a shame, because I've really grown fond of MKA instead of the alternatives for storing albums.
Indeed, depending upon the number of documents, it's frequently better to just have a box or envelope per year, with everything in it for that time period. If you've got a lot, then moving to a per month or possibly per week file is a good idea. It's good because you've got it in chunk size bites. And if you do decide to digitize chances are that you can handle an entire months worth of papers on the first of the next month, but either way, you generally have a fair idea of when to look.
For items that are just FYI, I tend to just scan those and chuck the original. The files tend to just get stored on my HDD under an appropriate broad category with an informative title including date.
For items that are tax records, you're stuck either with a paper copy, or using an IRS approved scanning product. Which reminds me that I've misplaced mine.
But in general, I've found that it makes a lot more sense to store things chronologically, just holding out things that are definitely trash and definitely more appropriate elsewhere. That way, I can mostly shred the folder after a few years after a quick glance for anything that's still relevant.
The biggest problem folks have is getting overly elaborate, and this system is really as elaborate as you want to get, and probably could use some simplification.
I disagree, until the cookie management settings are fixed and made to be functional there really is no basis for consent being implied. What I mean is that yes, you do have settings that work, but they're cumbersome, lacking in granularity and typically don't really give you much control. Plus, they're complicated and unless you're a power user, you don't necessarily know what you're doing, or even what cookies ought to be allowed.
Same goes for random javascript, sites rarely if ever tell you what javascript is supposed to run on the site and what is mandatory to keep the site going. If you look at the list of a huge number of sites these days, facebook shows up there. There's a reason why facebook is pretty much the first thing I put on any black lists I'm creating.
I'm not aware of a setting to prevent the cookies from being read by other domains, but the settings to blacklist and whitelist cookies are typically not very good. I was doing that for a while with Firefox, and it was a huge pain. For some reason they decided to make it so that you end up having to either block everything or end up responding to hundreds of requests. And they won't let you edit a setting, no that would be too easy, if you change your mind about a setting you have to remove it then go back to that site, then make the correct decision. Which does little good if you just want to block every cookie from a domain except for the particular one that you need to use the site.
From my experience it tends to be that way for all the browsers, although it's been a while since I used any of the other ones and may have changed.
Slightly off topic, but does anything actually support MKV? I've looked around and while the codec is probably fine, in practice that's pointless as nobody is bothering to produce software to use it. I've seen a half dozen open source and free products included it, none of which are currently being worked on and none of which are actually useful without a ton of knowledge about the program.
There's a fair number of packages which can read the files, but unlike the MKAs which are pretty easy to do, the video component has been a serious pain.
Quite apt, given that he's Ukranian and everybody assumes he's Russian.
I'm glad you're weighing in. I see these reports from time to time, and even today when I was sure that the memory being used by Firefox was going to be some ridiculous number, it ended up being 253mb. I'm always curious when people claim that their install has some sort of massive memory leak.
There is a free version which does quite well. But it does a lot more than just that. Plus, yes you can do all of that stuff by hand, however, unless you really have time to kill and are willing to spend a lot of time on tinkering, the cost of the paid version is likely less than the amount of time you'd spend researching it.
And, personally, I'm too lazy to bother constantly adjusting things like that and making sure to do the maintenance to keep things running well. Hence why apps like this exist. It's definitely not mandatory if you're willing to spend the time to do it your self. But then again, you technically don't need antivirus either, it's just much more convenient than refusing to connect to the internet.
Hmm, I'll have to try that. I'm migrating away from XP, but this sounds like just the thing for those times when I need to use a Win only app which doesn't run under Crossover. At this point, I pretty much am only using XP until I can finish my last set of backups, and install Linux.
I've tried a lot of optimization software over the years, but this is the one I've found that actually works as advertised: Advanced SystemCare 4
But, the thing is that in a corporate environment you're not likely to be allowed to install RAM or programs to deal with optimization. The best bet would be to prepare a report on how much time the OP is wasting waiting for the computer to respond and relate that to the cost of upgrading the hardware. That's really the best way of handling it in a business environment. They may still say no, but otherwise, why risk getting fired for screwing around with company property outside of the scope of work?
I take it you've never heard of Akamai, but beside that, it doesn't really help, as the toll is on the last mile, meaning that no matter where the content is being cached, at some point it has to go over that last mile, and that's what's being capped here.
As much as I've grown to despise Qwest over the years for being poor quality, slow and expensive, they don't have any caps at all on their service. The only limitation is what the pipe can handle at full capacity through the entire month.
You do have to adjust for the cost of living. But around here you can't get a connection like that without being an ISP. For home users a connection like that isn't available at any price which is really a huge part of the problem. People will swallow this change by AT&T, but it will be primarily because they haven't any other options apart from canceling service completely. And with more and more vital services moving online only, that's getting less and less viable all the time.
Saccharin doesn't cause cancer, hence why the FDA allowed the removal of the warning label. The link was never particularly strong and was based primarily on animal studies which didn't accurately model normal intake. Warning label removal
Why bother when you can sue your customers and bribe politicians?
This is more or less precisely the sort of situation that I was thinking of. Sexual abuse is hard enough to cope with and recover from without the possibility of recordings and evidence sitting there for years past any hope of prosecuting the individuals, for other perverts to enjoy and take pleasure in.
Sup, Dawg, I heard you like clouds, so I put a cloud in your plane, so you can crash when you crash.
The problem there is that you can't typically locate the provider without finding the people possessing. At that point, you've got the goods to prosecute people for possession and trading the materials, ignoring it at that point would be silly.
Now, if you've got some way of just getting straight to the source, I'm sure the FBI is open to suggestions.
The only issue I have with possession charges in all this is that there is no legal distinction between those that knowingly possess the stuff and those that accidentally download it, or who have it loaded onto their computer in some obscure directory by a cracker or somebody else.