"I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was in the classroom," he said. "First came a thick headache, then pains throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal."
Funny, I had the same reaction. But I don't recall there being wifi in my classrooms.
They choose to accept 2 weeks per year holiday.
They choose to work in an environment which will not allow their absence.
They choose to consume to such an extent they are required to work the amount they work.
They choose to purchase these things on credit so they are indebted to a third party.
I'll agree with you about over-consumption and overuse of credit, but that's not what's being discussed. As for your first two points, I can't agree there. Not everyone has the luxury to work part-time, or work as a high-paid contractor that can choose to work (or not work) whenever he pleases and still make enough money to live on, or dictate to their boss how many days off they get, or choose a job based on receiving an unusually high number of vacation days. Most jobs don't allow 50+ paid days off per year, and that's just the way things are right now. Whatever world you're living in sounds like fun, but it's certainly not this world.
Myself, I get around 100 days per year off and I wouldn't want any other way.
Yeah, it's nice being a perpetual student living off daddy's trust fund, isn't it?
I can not imagine NOT taking 2-3 weeks off each quarter for a real vacation. What prevents people from doing that? I hear it from friends who are overworked (usually because they are over-indebted): they can't leave because they'll miss something important at work. I never heard of this before because I always make sure that my future replacement in my position is trained for handling any emergencies when I am gone. I guess too many people are too protective of their position -- this usually means they see the future as a dead end or they see their abilities as plateaud. In this case, not taking a vacation really means they are just trying to hold ground.
I think what usually prevents people from doing that is that most people do not receive 50 vacation days per year, which is what would approximately be required to take four 2-3 week vacations every year. Most people don't even get half that number of days, especially not until they either a) reach the upper echelons, or b) work at the same company for years/decades.
What it suggests to me is that the lizards with long legs did take to the trees and that their offspring and their offspring's offspring started developing shorter legs as they adapted to growing up climbing trees.
Which is, of course, completely inaccurate.
From TFA: "The change came sooner than expected. Just six months later the anoles were almost exclusively tree-dwelling, and longer-legged lizards had died in disproportionate numbers."
The average leg length in the population shifted because short legged anoles survived and bred, and long legged anoles died before breeding.
There's nothing groundbreaking or controversial about this article, at least in evolutionary circles. Nothing to see here, move along.
You wouldn't even need to clone it for that... merely steal it. If agents inevitably start relying on the computer that's where the problem lies. The checking procedure could be designed in order to somehow "force" a visual ID.
But if the passport is stolen, then it's possible for the rightful owner to report it as stolen, in which case when that similar looking person tries to use the passport to cross a border, the nice officer doesn't need to bother doing a visual check because the computer would signal the officer that the passport was stolen, starting a whole other set of more detailed investigations.
No, it is not in the US. An affirmative defense is something the defendant must prove. Truth is not an affirmative defense to defamation (libel or slander), proof of falsity is part of the prima facie case for defamation that the plaintiff must prove.
If one person sued another for slander or libel, would you not expect the defense to list "truth" as one of their affirmative defenses (assuming the statements were in fact true)? If it comes down to the plaintiff and the defendant disagreeing as to the truth of the statement, then it would seem that it would benefit the defendant to make that argument and support it in the best way possible.
Why does saying 'you know, sometimes extra levels of meaning can make a thing more enjoyable' encounter such resistance?
Nothing. Assuming that's the message of Bully. But what the article really is saying is "don't think of Bully as a vulgar fighting game, there's more to it than that. Really!" My opinion is that in games, there doesn't *need* to be more to it than that. If you want to add subtext and nuance, that's your prerogative. If all you want to do is make something that's entertaining, that's okay too. It doesn't need to be explained away by levels of depth and meaning that don't exist just to validate the existence of the game.
I didn't say I don't appreciate a more in depth critic now and again, I just said I don't want it in my basic mindless entertainment. I happened to like Evangelion, until of course it turned into the artists' masturbatory fantasy of stick drawing.
In any case, the joke's on you. I'm not even a man!! What? You think all people who post on/. are men? Sexist.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I play a video game, I don't want a "scathing critique of high school social politics," or anything else for that matter. I want something that entertains and engages me. Whatever happened to fun for fun's sake?!?
Windows Update is being phased out and will be fully replaced with Microsoft Update, which will be expanded to provide updates for all Microsoft programs. Office updates will then become as routine as operating system ones.
If that's so, then all I have to say is it's about time. It was rare enough before that people got Office Updates (or even knew they existed). With Automatic Updates I'm sure it became even easier for people to forget that Office Updates needed checking as well.
...any Office Online templates downloaded from within the Office 2007 Microsoft Office System applications will require validation of legitimacy...
...users of Office Update will have to validate the legitimacy of their Office software before they can use the service...
The joke's on Microsoft. Exactly how many people use Online templates or Office Update? Compared to people who use Windows Update, I'm guessing not that many. And of those people who do use Office Update *and* don't have a legit copy of Office, how many of them are savvy enough to *ahem* figure out/find a way around the mandatory OGA?
So basically what they're saying is if it wasn't for them screwing up horribly and for intentionally making their products cost way more to manufacture than they could possibly sell for (which of course they do for the consumer, not as a way of pushing their own format innovations), it still wouldn't be their fault they're not making money because it's the INDUSTRY'S fault. I'm especially amused by the related article: "Nintendo Profits Up 72%, Sony's Down 94%" Hey Sony, what's that do to your theory that the industry is to blame when in fact a company that bases ALL of their profits on gaming is doing well, whereas your company, which does only a fraction of its business in gaming, is not doing quite as well.
Hey Oneda, how exactly do you need to "contend with" PS3 costs when that is something that's entirely within your control?
Yes I did, but then that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it.
If the information stolen wirelessly is ONLY capable of being reused wirelessly, then it's 100% odds that stolen information submitted wirelessly was stolen wirelessly (unless the card itself is physically lost/stolen, which the owner can confirm or deny)
That's a big if. Are you saying that's how it actually works right now, or only that it's the way it should be? Because it sounds from your posts that you have a lot of ideas about what should be done but aren't actually saying that's how it's done right now. For example:
The trick is that the banks need to require the CVV2 for *all* manually entered transactions, and to legislatively require jail time for any merchant who stores or prints the CVV2 in any way, shape or form.
and then there's:
Plus, as I understand it RFID can act like a smartcard, there is the potential to use a challenge/response system which will be MUCH harder to crack. Limiting a thief to having 30 seconds from when the transcation starts to when they need to complete it, and requiring that the card be accessible during that time (even if wirelessly), will make it much easier to track the fraud since you'll have a rather narrow radius where the thief was standing when they performed the transaction.
and finally:
As far as then when or where, smartcards (which require contact) and RFID (which doesn't) can both use challenge/response -- See my previous post for why this makes it possible to locate WHERE the compromise occured (by limiting the WHEN to an extremely short period of time)
Great! But what's important is not how things should be or can be, rather how things actually are done, right now, in the wild. Even you admit as much:
All of this is a "Can it be done" not a "Will it be done" though...
If all your assumptions or suggestions are correct, great! But if there are swipeless cards that can also act as swiping cards, if the card number itself is transmitted through the swipeless system and is detectable by someone hacking the signal, if measures are not taken to ensure that the swipeless data and the swiping data are able to be de-aggregated, then it will be difficult to connect a large number of swipeless breaches to their cause.
Do you have any evidence to show that all of these safety measures are in place?
Well, gee, the fact that all the card numbers stolen were from people who had 'no-swipe' credit cards might clue them in, huh?
Except that "no-swipe" cards also have the ability to be swiped, or to have the number manually entered on a website or on a payment form. Otherwise what would the user do when they got to a vendor that doesn't have the no-swipe system? Just because a person with a no-swipe card had their number stolen doesn't mean it was because of the no-swipe ability.
I'm not saying the CC companies can't tell how a card was used (manually, swiping, swipeless, etc), I'm saying they can't tell how or when a number was stolen. If someone uses a swipeless method to steal someone's card number, they're not necessary going to use the card fraudulently through the same method. And if the person uses the card at many locations, some of them by swiping, some of them through the swipeless method, some of them by entering the number manually, who is to say that it was through one method or another that the card number was stolen? Perhaps it wasn't through the swipeless method, but rather through a disgruntled employee, or a breach in security such as the loss of backup tapes.
The only way I think it would work is if they tracked the number of compromised cards that have swipeless in them vs. the number of compromised cards that don't have swipeless during the same timeframe, and see if the rates are noticably higher for swipeless cards.
My biggest issue has always been what am I willing to do or not do when I'm in various situations: on a friend's computer, a wired kiosk, a non-secured wireless connection using my own computer, etc., and the heartache that comes with those decisions.
I find this comment in the article very interesting:
"Where I'd draw the line is putting in your bank account information or credit card number," he said, adding that checking e-mail messages probably is not that risky, but if you want to be cautious, change your password once you are on a secure connection again.
That said, if you gain access to your corporate network through a V.P.N., or virtual private network, you are safer using public hot spots, because your data is encrypted as it travels between Gate 17 and your office's server, where it is decoded before going to its destination.
Technically, putting in your bank information or credit card information at most respectable websites should be more secure than checking email, because most major banking institutions or sites that accept credit card numbers do so using SSL, which should be safe even if being broadcast over any wireless connection. And they even accept the secure nature of VPN encryption, but don't bother mentioning the encryption available for most banking/CC transactions. On the other hand, most people don't check their email over a secure connection, because either secure email is unavailable to them, or secure email is not the default and they don't know better than to use the default, or only the password is broadcast securely while the emails themselves are still sent in plain text.
That being said, I still avoid sending banking records, CC numbers, and even secure email over non-secure wireless connections, unless it is absolutely necessary, and tend to be very choosy about which of my friends' computers I will use to access my most valuable information. Guess I just can't take off that tin-foil hat!
Which assumes that if there were a huge privacy breach caused by the sort of device talked about in the article, that it would be widely known how the breach occurred. It's possible that the only thing people--and even experts--would know is that somehow a massive number of credit card numbers were comprimised. But considering there are so many other, low-tech ways of getting people's CC numbers, unless there were hard evidence that the method was through the swipeless reading method, Occam's razor would dictate that a simpler method of breach would be the most likely culprit.
Hmmm, maybe an "angry drunk" tattoo on the forehead would be a more economical idea. You could make it ultraviolet so that it only shows up under a black light:)
You're certainly not the first to think of that idea (poor impulse control, anyone?), though the visible tattoo could be an effective deterrent as well.
Not exactly. It's just that this battle between HP and Dell keeps going around in circles. 6 months from now Dell will be back on top, a year from now HP, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam.
Slashdot Mirror
From a teacher:
Funny, I had the same reaction. But I don't recall there being wifi in my classrooms.
Just because you made the mistake of buying Sony stock doesn't mean you have to blame the rest of us for sensing which way the wind is blowing.
I'll agree with you about over-consumption and overuse of credit, but that's not what's being discussed. As for your first two points, I can't agree there. Not everyone has the luxury to work part-time, or work as a high-paid contractor that can choose to work (or not work) whenever he pleases and still make enough money to live on, or dictate to their boss how many days off they get, or choose a job based on receiving an unusually high number of vacation days. Most jobs don't allow 50+ paid days off per year, and that's just the way things are right now. Whatever world you're living in sounds like fun, but it's certainly not this world.
Yeah, it's nice being a perpetual student living off daddy's trust fund, isn't it?
I think what usually prevents people from doing that is that most people do not receive 50 vacation days per year, which is what would approximately be required to take four 2-3 week vacations every year. Most people don't even get half that number of days, especially not until they either a) reach the upper echelons, or b) work at the same company for years/decades.
Lucky you!
Which is, of course, completely inaccurate.
From TFA:
"The change came sooner than expected. Just six months later the anoles were almost exclusively tree-dwelling, and longer-legged lizards had died in disproportionate numbers."
The average leg length in the population shifted because short legged anoles survived and bred, and long legged anoles died before breeding.
There's nothing groundbreaking or controversial about this article, at least in evolutionary circles. Nothing to see here, move along.
But if the passport is stolen, then it's possible for the rightful owner to report it as stolen, in which case when that similar looking person tries to use the passport to cross a border, the nice officer doesn't need to bother doing a visual check because the computer would signal the officer that the passport was stolen, starting a whole other set of more detailed investigations.
So what you're saying is Bush was for Rumsfeld before he was against him?
If one person sued another for slander or libel, would you not expect the defense to list "truth" as one of their affirmative defenses (assuming the statements were in fact true)? If it comes down to the plaintiff and the defendant disagreeing as to the truth of the statement, then it would seem that it would benefit the defendant to make that argument and support it in the best way possible.
I do, and I enjoy it. I didn't realize it was also a GAME to watch South Park.
Nothing. Assuming that's the message of Bully. But what the article really is saying is "don't think of Bully as a vulgar fighting game, there's more to it than that. Really!" My opinion is that in games, there doesn't *need* to be more to it than that. If you want to add subtext and nuance, that's your prerogative. If all you want to do is make something that's entertaining, that's okay too. It doesn't need to be explained away by levels of depth and meaning that don't exist just to validate the existence of the game.
Joke's on you. Be you get scared of girls anyway. Go ahead and perpetuate the belief that
I didn't say I don't appreciate a more in depth critic now and again, I just said I don't want it in my basic mindless entertainment. I happened to like Evangelion, until of course it turned into the artists' masturbatory fantasy of stick drawing.
/. are men? Sexist.
In any case, the joke's on you. I'm not even a man!! What? You think all people who post on
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I play a video game, I don't want a "scathing critique of high school social politics," or anything else for that matter. I want something that entertains and engages me. Whatever happened to fun for fun's sake?!?
If that's so, then all I have to say is it's about time. It was rare enough before that people got Office Updates (or even knew they existed). With Automatic Updates I'm sure it became even easier for people to forget that Office Updates needed checking as well.
The joke's on Microsoft. Exactly how many people use Online templates or Office Update? Compared to people who use Windows Update, I'm guessing not that many. And of those people who do use Office Update *and* don't have a legit copy of Office, how many of them are savvy enough to *ahem* figure out/find a way around the mandatory OGA?
So basically what they're saying is if it wasn't for them screwing up horribly and for intentionally making their products cost way more to manufacture than they could possibly sell for (which of course they do for the consumer, not as a way of pushing their own format innovations), it still wouldn't be their fault they're not making money because it's the INDUSTRY'S fault. I'm especially amused by the related article: "Nintendo Profits Up 72%, Sony's Down 94%" Hey Sony, what's that do to your theory that the industry is to blame when in fact a company that bases ALL of their profits on gaming is doing well, whereas your company, which does only a fraction of its business in gaming, is not doing quite as well.
Hey Oneda, how exactly do you need to "contend with" PS3 costs when that is something that's entirely within your control?
Yes I did, but then that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it.
That's a big if. Are you saying that's how it actually works right now, or only that it's the way it should be? Because it sounds from your posts that you have a lot of ideas about what should be done but aren't actually saying that's how it's done right now. For example:
and then there's:
and finally:
Great! But what's important is not how things should be or can be, rather how things actually are done, right now, in the wild. Even you admit as much:
If all your assumptions or suggestions are correct, great! But if there are swipeless cards that can also act as swiping cards, if the card number itself is transmitted through the swipeless system and is detectable by someone hacking the signal, if measures are not taken to ensure that the swipeless data and the swiping data are able to be de-aggregated, then it will be difficult to connect a large number of swipeless breaches to their cause.
Do you have any evidence to show that all of these safety measures are in place?
I'm not saying the CC companies can't tell how a card was used (manually, swiping, swipeless, etc), I'm saying they can't tell how or when a number was stolen. If someone uses a swipeless method to steal someone's card number, they're not necessary going to use the card fraudulently through the same method. And if the person uses the card at many locations, some of them by swiping, some of them through the swipeless method, some of them by entering the number manually, who is to say that it was through one method or another that the card number was stolen? Perhaps it wasn't through the swipeless method, but rather through a disgruntled employee, or a breach in security such as the loss of backup tapes.
The only way I think it would work is if they tracked the number of compromised cards that have swipeless in them vs. the number of compromised cards that don't have swipeless during the same timeframe, and see if the rates are noticably higher for swipeless cards.
Why don't they just trash the script as-is and set aside the rest of the budget to make a Red vs. Blue movie?
I find this comment in the article very interesting:
Technically, putting in your bank information or credit card information at most respectable websites should be more secure than checking email, because most major banking institutions or sites that accept credit card numbers do so using SSL, which should be safe even if being broadcast over any wireless connection. And they even accept the secure nature of VPN encryption, but don't bother mentioning the encryption available for most banking/CC transactions. On the other hand, most people don't check their email over a secure connection, because either secure email is unavailable to them, or secure email is not the default and they don't know better than to use the default, or only the password is broadcast securely while the emails themselves are still sent in plain text.
That being said, I still avoid sending banking records, CC numbers, and even secure email over non-secure wireless connections, unless it is absolutely necessary, and tend to be very choosy about which of my friends' computers I will use to access my most valuable information. Guess I just can't take off that tin-foil hat!
Which assumes that if there were a huge privacy breach caused by the sort of device talked about in the article, that it would be widely known how the breach occurred. It's possible that the only thing people--and even experts--would know is that somehow a massive number of credit card numbers were comprimised. But considering there are so many other, low-tech ways of getting people's CC numbers, unless there were hard evidence that the method was through the swipeless reading method, Occam's razor would dictate that a simpler method of breach would be the most likely culprit.
For God's sake, someone mod this parent comment up.
Why? He didn't say it first. He didn't even say it best.
I think the article just has the wrong date
Not exactly. It's just that this battle between HP and Dell keeps going around in circles. 6 months from now Dell will be back on top, a year from now HP, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam.