My bank has my email address. So does my credit card company. So does my other bank. So does my other credit card company (which happens to be my other bank too).
None of them send me emails with insecure information in them. They do send emails telling me "We need to tell you something" but then I log onto their website to find out what it is.
(Except my credit card company decided to send spam to me, so now they don't have my email address. As it's an online-only account I suspect this is causing them distress, but the card keeps working.)
why don't they implement some of the simple and easy things that would help a lot - like an easy facility for checking the authenticity of a caller?
Clearly you haven't encountered the term "Identity and access management". Lets just say that the bank I work for spends many millions of pounds on various technologies in that space.
That's not the only financial crime prevention activity but oddly enough this isn't an area I'm going to reveal too much about. Security by obscurity is insufficient but that doesn't stop it contributing to an overall security strategy.
(Note that financial crime is far from the only reason we do this. We have a responsibility to our customers and to our owners to protect their identity, their data and their money. We have regulatory requirements to meet. We generally like being nice people. And our head of Financial Crime gets personally offended and very distressed whenever some lowlife steals money from us).
When my bank or card company calls me, I tell them that I can not validate who they are and that I will not give them any information. I then ring the number on my debit/credit card, explain that I've just had a call, and every time so far get told, "Oh, yes - we wanted to talk to you about..."
Works for me, the bank's never complained, and it means I don't have to trust random callers with my banking details.
Banks should have the responsibility of providing a means for people to be 100% certain they are connected with the bank's own website instead of any imposter.
They do. It's called "Notice: Don't be fucking stupid" and they had it paraphrased on the bank's website. This bloke failed to comply.
No website worth its salt should allow a piece of software to read its contents
That could make accessing it slightly complicated then. We're going to need a web browser fully implemented in a mechanical device, and I'm really hoping you'll let us get away with using software at the transport layer.
Yeah, and my Android phone has a very different user ID to my normal gmail account, which in turn is different to my youtube account, which in turn is different to my Google sites account, which in turn is different to the Google Docs account I use for work related docs.
Obviously despite hitting 'sign out' every time I finish using a Google service of any kind, Google know exactly who I am, where I live and what my bra size is:(
Also what has happened to Scotland actually IS unfair
Only if you're living in the 17th century still. The rest of us have moved on.
you, like like a typical unionist
However, unlike unlike a typical unionist, I'd actually vote for Scottish independence. I'd split off Wales, Northern Ireland and Yorkshire too. Frankly these things are pretty arbitrary anyway and too many idiots get hung up on where a line is drawn on a map.
I'd keep Wiltshire though. I like Wiltshire. Actually, that whole band of the country, from Wiltshire and Bristol, up through Gloucester and Oxford, incorporating Hereford and Worcester, cutting across to include Kettering and then skirting below Birmingham, past Derby (which is awful) and through Nottingham into Lincolnshire.
But then, I like Denmark too. It's clean and civilised and the people are friendly and have wonderful accents. Can I swap Scotland for Denmark?
Stop trolling. How the hell am I dragging you down, when my tax bill alone is higher than the average wage in Scotland, when my cash benefits from the Government are zero, when the net spending per person in my area is lower than it is in Scotland?
I don't care if Scotland's in surplus or not, including or excluding North Sea oil: right now Scotland has a lower rate of employment than the part of the UK in which I'm living.
Can you at least use some basic facts rather than SNP propaganda? You sound like a small child bleating that it's all so unfair.
Hmm. Such hatred. What's wrong, letting your personal insecurities out as nationalism?
Try living in the middle or north of England, where your net return on taxes makes Scotland's look generous and you still have to pay university fees, prescription costs and travel to find work.
Trust me, England would be in a far better position without the Scots MPs that voted to fuck over the English while protecting the Scots. Why do you think most people in England wantto vote in the referendum: it's so they can stop Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't effect Scotland.
That's fine, if Scotland ever goes independent I'll work in England so I benefit from the employment, weather and quality of life then retire in Scotland to benefit from the healthcare and pension paid for by the oil wealth. With the added bonus that my annuity rates will be vastly improved if I move to Scotland just before taking them out.
It may or may not. I don't know, and I can't tell because it hasn't gone to trial.
What has happened is that someone's had their business disrupted, and their customers have had their personal data stolen from them, all without due process of the law.
There has been a crime here, and even copyright infringers deserve a fair trial. Those trying to deny it to them need prosecuting.
Ok, I can't be arsed trying to google for the individual news reports, studies and Government publications that back this up, but:
Age at death : check any 'life expectancy' study in the past century in the UK or the US.
Healthcare : women get screening at an earlier age than men, and more often. they're more likely to go to the doctor (for various reasons) which means they get more time/effort/expenditure as a result. They get a ton of maternity support which usually men don't need.
Custody : check court statistics, dozens of news reports, mens support organisations..
Part time pay : This was a UK government study into pay rates. The media focussed on a headline grabbing "men get paid more than women", focussing on numbers that compared all men (including those working 80 hour weeks in C-level positions) against all women (including those working 15 hours a week as a cleaner) and that didn't take into account the number of years worked, corresponding experience or the jobs being done. Only one report in the media acknowledged that the report had found that women working part time do earn more than men working part time, for the same job, on a per-hour wage basis. This is particularly relevant as many women prefer to work part time as they want time with their kids (something men also have to trade off against their career, but that is also generally disregarded when comparing pay).
sex discrimination: it's the law in the UK that if a woman and a man of equal qualifications and experience apply for the same role, you can give the job to the woman because she's female. You can not give the job to the man because he's male. I think that's fucking atrocious. Entirely unrelated (no, really): The UK has a government minister for women, but not one for men.
clothing: given the choice I'd wear female clothing to work. It's more comfortable than a suit & tie, the materials are nicer and there's greater scope for individual expression. It's silly that women get wear a t-shirt and slacks to work and it's "formal business attire" while men have to strangle themselves.
Here's a bonus one for you: Compare the rates of 'death in service' between men and women. Whether it's military action, industrial accidents or any other form of employment, men are around 40 times more likely to be killed at work.
Interesting, did you pay extra to make that comment?
While I may or may not be a pathetic fuck, and my mood swings don't stray into anger management complexities, I'd actually just prefer not to buy the game.
It's interesting however that you interpret 'being honest' with 'pathetic' and 'anger issues'. I pity you.
I'm still confused about why people feel they should get paid for creating art.
I create art because I enjoy doing it. I share it because I know people that like the art I create. I don't get paid for it because I do it for fun.
So why shouldn't I enjoy the art created by others at a comparable price?
Shit, I give a substantial proportion of my income to artists so that they don't have to work for a living. Just because I'm generous doesn't mean other artists should feel entitled to some of that generousity.
Yes. But that's because Slashdot discussions generally include multiple diverse viewpoints intermingled and intelligently argued, in amongst the jerks, the DOTA fanatics and the people going "WTF is DOTA and why should we care if jerks want to pay for it?"
Hmm. Someone pointing out that they've never heard of DOTA so you flame them for.. not knowing what DOTA is?
Shit, I've been PC gaming since '91 (and "home computer" gaming and programming since '82) and I only know what DOTA is because I saw it mentioned as a genre a while back and went hunting across the 'net to find out what it is. I've since played a couple of DOTA based games and found them entirely unrewarding, so it doesn't surprise me at all that someone hasn't come across that style of game or particularly that particular implementation.
I mean, shit, Blizzard fucked up every RTS they made after Warcraft II, it's hardly a surprise many PC gamers haven't played a mod for WCIII.
Actually, I'd be with them. Charge me extra because I'm not 'nice' and I feel no obligation to even try.
Sometimes it's nice to be honest with people, and sadly work usually isn't the place for, when out dancing I'd lose out on some good.. dances, and while I'm out shooting, the other people are armed too. So really it's only when gaming that I get to be completely honest about the people around me.
No, I resent the fact that his apparent willingness to fuck over other people gets rewarded and I think that the Instagram purchase was a poor decision. I acknowledge entirely that he's made a lot of excellent decisions, and a lot of lucrative decisions that I wouldn't have made due to the aforementioned fucking over of other people.
But that's fine, it's easy to claim integrity when you don't have the millions in the bank to suggest otherwise.
The comedy being that "Camera Awesome" went live with that model, and consequently produces significantly more revenue than Instagram even without the millions of users.
Whether it makes a profit is probably a function of initial development cost; that it will eventually make a profit is a pretty good bet.
No. It's a term that doesn't get used in the UK. I don't understand it. I don't understand the hatred for it. I don't know whether it applies to me, and I don't even care. I'm really not sure why it's important to some people to identify with it, and important to some people to identify themselves as not being it.
I certainly don't see any point using it to stereotype a diverse and disparate population, which may be why it hasn't caught on in the UK.
For most businesses, IT is support. There's very little opportunity to contribute to strategy. The expertise is technical and objectives are internal. Strategy is about vision and is primarily concerned with external forces
Welcome to the Internet, a technical concept that's utterly changed the dynamics of multiple industries. Get on board or go out of business.
See also: Borders, Best Buy, various media companies.
Right now banks are facing a troubling future. Part of that is drastically increased regulation but part of it is the threat from new low-cost transactional mechanisms being explored by non-bank institutions. If you're a bank that doesn't know where the mobile payments market is headed then you could be out of business in five years.
IT is strategic because IT is a competitive differentiator in innovative areas and a mandatory competitive enabler in most other areas.
Slashdot Mirror
My bank has my email address. So does my credit card company. So does my other bank. So does my other credit card company (which happens to be my other bank too).
None of them send me emails with insecure information in them. They do send emails telling me "We need to tell you something" but then I log onto their website to find out what it is.
(Except my credit card company decided to send spam to me, so now they don't have my email address. As it's an online-only account I suspect this is causing them distress, but the card keeps working.)
why don't they implement some of the simple and easy things that would help a lot - like an easy facility for checking the authenticity of a caller?
Clearly you haven't encountered the term "Identity and access management". Lets just say that the bank I work for spends many millions of pounds on various technologies in that space.
That's not the only financial crime prevention activity but oddly enough this isn't an area I'm going to reveal too much about. Security by obscurity is insufficient but that doesn't stop it contributing to an overall security strategy.
(Note that financial crime is far from the only reason we do this. We have a responsibility to our customers and to our owners to protect their identity, their data and their money. We have regulatory requirements to meet. We generally like being nice people. And our head of Financial Crime gets personally offended and very distressed whenever some lowlife steals money from us).
When my bank or card company calls me, I tell them that I can not validate who they are and that I will not give them any information. I then ring the number on my debit/credit card, explain that I've just had a call, and every time so far get told, "Oh, yes - we wanted to talk to you about..."
Works for me, the bank's never complained, and it means I don't have to trust random callers with my banking details.
Banks should have the responsibility of providing a means for people to be 100% certain they are connected with the bank's own website instead of any imposter.
They do. It's called "Notice: Don't be fucking stupid" and they had it paraphrased on the bank's website. This bloke failed to comply.
No website worth its salt should allow a piece of software to read its contents
That could make accessing it slightly complicated then. We're going to need a web browser fully implemented in a mechanical device, and I'm really hoping you'll let us get away with using software at the transport layer.
Yeah, and my Android phone has a very different user ID to my normal gmail account, which in turn is different to my youtube account, which in turn is different to my Google sites account, which in turn is different to the Google Docs account I use for work related docs.
Obviously despite hitting 'sign out' every time I finish using a Google service of any kind, Google know exactly who I am, where I live and what my bra size is :(
Also what has happened to Scotland actually IS unfair
Only if you're living in the 17th century still. The rest of us have moved on.
you, like like a typical unionist
However, unlike unlike a typical unionist, I'd actually vote for Scottish independence. I'd split off Wales, Northern Ireland and Yorkshire too. Frankly these things are pretty arbitrary anyway and too many idiots get hung up on where a line is drawn on a map.
I'd keep Wiltshire though. I like Wiltshire. Actually, that whole band of the country, from Wiltshire and Bristol, up through Gloucester and Oxford, incorporating Hereford and Worcester, cutting across to include Kettering and then skirting below Birmingham, past Derby (which is awful) and through Nottingham into Lincolnshire.
But then, I like Denmark too. It's clean and civilised and the people are friendly and have wonderful accents. Can I swap Scotland for Denmark?
Stop trolling. How the hell am I dragging you down, when my tax bill alone is higher than the average wage in Scotland, when my cash benefits from the Government are zero, when the net spending per person in my area is lower than it is in Scotland?
I don't care if Scotland's in surplus or not, including or excluding North Sea oil: right now Scotland has a lower rate of employment than the part of the UK in which I'm living.
Can you at least use some basic facts rather than SNP propaganda? You sound like a small child bleating that it's all so unfair.
Hmm. Such hatred. What's wrong, letting your personal insecurities out as nationalism?
Try living in the middle or north of England, where your net return on taxes makes Scotland's look generous and you still have to pay university fees, prescription costs and travel to find work.
Trust me, England would be in a far better position without the Scots MPs that voted to fuck over the English while protecting the Scots. Why do you think most people in England wantto vote in the referendum: it's so they can stop Scottish MPs voting on matters that don't effect Scotland.
That's fine, if Scotland ever goes independent I'll work in England so I benefit from the employment, weather and quality of life then retire in Scotland to benefit from the healthcare and pension paid for by the oil wealth. With the added bonus that my annuity rates will be vastly improved if I move to Scotland just before taking them out.
ffs, everything is 'money laundering' these days, if it involves suspected illegality and money.
Meanwhile a US judge is suggesting that he wont get tried or extradited. So you're calling a US judge a liar. Dangerous ground indeed.
It may or may not. I don't know, and I can't tell because it hasn't gone to trial.
What has happened is that someone's had their business disrupted, and their customers have had their personal data stolen from them, all without due process of the law.
There has been a crime here, and even copyright infringers deserve a fair trial. Those trying to deny it to them need prosecuting.
Ok, I can't be arsed trying to google for the individual news reports, studies and Government publications that back this up, but:
Age at death : check any 'life expectancy' study in the past century in the UK or the US.
Healthcare : women get screening at an earlier age than men, and more often. they're more likely to go to the doctor (for various reasons) which means they get more time/effort/expenditure as a result. They get a ton of maternity support which usually men don't need.
Custody : check court statistics, dozens of news reports, mens support organisations..
Part time pay : This was a UK government study into pay rates. The media focussed on a headline grabbing "men get paid more than women", focussing on numbers that compared all men (including those working 80 hour weeks in C-level positions) against all women (including those working 15 hours a week as a cleaner) and that didn't take into account the number of years worked, corresponding experience or the jobs being done. Only one report in the media acknowledged that the report had found that women working part time do earn more than men working part time, for the same job, on a per-hour wage basis. This is particularly relevant as many women prefer to work part time as they want time with their kids (something men also have to trade off against their career, but that is also generally disregarded when comparing pay).
sex discrimination: it's the law in the UK that if a woman and a man of equal qualifications and experience apply for the same role, you can give the job to the woman because she's female. You can not give the job to the man because he's male. I think that's fucking atrocious. Entirely unrelated (no, really): The UK has a government minister for women, but not one for men.
clothing: given the choice I'd wear female clothing to work. It's more comfortable than a suit & tie, the materials are nicer and there's greater scope for individual expression. It's silly that women get wear a t-shirt and slacks to work and it's "formal business attire" while men have to strangle themselves.
minister: just google for UK ministers
pay rates: This one's worth linking: http://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_rosin_new_data_on_the_rise_of_women.html - I'd mis-remembered, it's "young single childless" women earning more than equivalent men.
Here's a bonus one for you: Compare the rates of 'death in service' between men and women. Whether it's military action, industrial accidents or any other form of employment, men are around 40 times more likely to be killed at work.
Interesting, did you pay extra to make that comment?
While I may or may not be a pathetic fuck, and my mood swings don't stray into anger management complexities, I'd actually just prefer not to buy the game.
It's interesting however that you interpret 'being honest' with 'pathetic' and 'anger issues'. I pity you.
Next, people will feel entitled
I'm still confused about why people feel they should get paid for creating art.
I create art because I enjoy doing it. I share it because I know people that like the art I create. I don't get paid for it because I do it for fun.
So why shouldn't I enjoy the art created by others at a comparable price?
Shit, I give a substantial proportion of my income to artists so that they don't have to work for a living. Just because I'm generous doesn't mean other artists should feel entitled to some of that generousity.
Hmm. That's a superb idea. Time to sue the BBC for breaking their charter by advertising a commercial company (the IOC) every waking fucking minute.
Indeed - PlingAtHashDollar...
Yes. But that's because Slashdot discussions generally include multiple diverse viewpoints intermingled and intelligently argued, in amongst the jerks, the DOTA fanatics and the people going "WTF is DOTA and why should we care if jerks want to pay for it?"
Hmm. Someone pointing out that they've never heard of DOTA so you flame them for.. not knowing what DOTA is?
Shit, I've been PC gaming since '91 (and "home computer" gaming and programming since '82) and I only know what DOTA is because I saw it mentioned as a genre a while back and went hunting across the 'net to find out what it is. I've since played a couple of DOTA based games and found them entirely unrewarding, so it doesn't surprise me at all that someone hasn't come across that style of game or particularly that particular implementation.
I mean, shit, Blizzard fucked up every RTS they made after Warcraft II, it's hardly a surprise many PC gamers haven't played a mod for WCIII.
Actually, I'd be with them. Charge me extra because I'm not 'nice' and I feel no obligation to even try.
Sometimes it's nice to be honest with people, and sadly work usually isn't the place for, when out dancing I'd lose out on some good.. dances, and while I'm out shooting, the other people are armed too. So really it's only when gaming that I get to be completely honest about the people around me.
No, I resent the fact that his apparent willingness to fuck over other people gets rewarded and I think that the Instagram purchase was a poor decision. I acknowledge entirely that he's made a lot of excellent decisions, and a lot of lucrative decisions that I wouldn't have made due to the aforementioned fucking over of other people.
But that's fine, it's easy to claim integrity when you don't have the millions in the bank to suggest otherwise.
The comedy being that "Camera Awesome" went live with that model, and consequently produces significantly more revenue than Instagram even without the millions of users.
Whether it makes a profit is probably a function of initial development cost; that it will eventually make a profit is a pretty good bet.
No. It's a term that doesn't get used in the UK. I don't understand it. I don't understand the hatred for it. I don't know whether it applies to me, and I don't even care. I'm really not sure why it's important to some people to identify with it, and important to some people to identify themselves as not being it.
I certainly don't see any point using it to stereotype a diverse and disparate population, which may be why it hasn't caught on in the UK.
In IT, everything is possible. Most of it just isn't affordable.
For most businesses, IT is support. There's very little opportunity to contribute to strategy. The expertise is technical and objectives are internal. Strategy is about vision and is primarily concerned with external forces
Welcome to the Internet, a technical concept that's utterly changed the dynamics of multiple industries. Get on board or go out of business.
See also: Borders, Best Buy, various media companies.
Right now banks are facing a troubling future. Part of that is drastically increased regulation but part of it is the threat from new low-cost transactional mechanisms being explored by non-bank institutions. If you're a bank that doesn't know where the mobile payments market is headed then you could be out of business in five years.
IT is strategic because IT is a competitive differentiator in innovative areas and a mandatory competitive enabler in most other areas.
Neglect IT investment and you're fucked.