it's against British law to use someone else's wireless system Off topic, but I think there's still potentially scope for the argument that providing an unsecured wireless network point is a de facto offer of service - purely based on the protocols in use.
Hacking a WEP key (while trivial) to access one is on the other hand clearly circumvention of a security mechanism and thus contravenes the computer misuse act.
Where the distribution of security falls down is when a bank customer uses internet banking from their work PC. I do this, and I know that my employer can (and maybe already did) install a screen/mouse/keyboard logger onto my work PC. I have no (official) control over this, it makes my PC more vulnerable than my home one, yet the bank doesn't mandate that people don't use their system from work.
(Since the online banking I use at work is for the account I hold with the bank I work for, I'd really enjoy the conversation in which they suggested my work environment may not be secure;)
Similar arguments can be made regarding 'net cafes, libraries and any other computer not owned by the user.
The banks have to assume users will be on an insecure PC and act accordingly. Anything else is merely an attempt to bully naive customers.
This isn't such a straightforward decision to make.
$5-6 times a few million customers plus the server-side support plus the application level integration make this a significant level of investment. Now add in the incompetence of users and the associated increase in calls to the contact centre that this will cause. Now throw in disabled users you have to support. Now consider the usability aspects of the other customers who just want to get access to their account.
$5-6 per customer may be cheap. $30m up front, a 5% increase in contact centre costs, potential brand impacts by pissing off customers are not cheap, and need serious consideration against the financial crime and brand impacts of not rolling out such devices.
(Incidentally, where are you finding them for those prices? Last I heard they're an order of magnitude more expensive, although I'll admit I was surprised when I heard that - may be I heard the TCO, rather than the purchase price).
Unless I explicitly give my banking credentials to someone (thus authorising them to act on my behalf) then frankly I don't give a shit who the bank gives money to: I haven't authorised them to give any of _my_ money to anybody else, and so they damn well better give it to me when I ask for it.
If someone defrauds the bank by pretending the bank owes it money (by pretending to be me) then they have defrauded the bank, and not me.
If the bank feel I have been negligent and enabled that to happen then they'd better be able to explain in court why on earth they trusted an almost certainly insecure (i.e. customer PC) source of identification when there are cheap, simple and very available mechanisms available that would considerably boost security and reduce risk.
(I also happen to have my primary accounts at a bank with such additional security mechanisms - although that's coincidence rather than intentional on my part)
My very fucking point is that men are more vulnerable than women. I even linked a fucking US Department of Justice website demonstrating the fact.
Women had 100 units of "danger". Men had 200 units of "danger".
Now women have 50 units and men have 250 units.
This is why feminists are full of shit and you haven't been fucking reading what I'm typing. Which part of "Men are more likely to be assaulted than women" is proving so fucking complicated here?
Go back and re-read what I've been writing. Try and absorb and understand it. Try and step away from your blinkered assumption that women are more vulnerable than men because the fucking facts are pretty fucking clear that they are not.
Yes, I have thought this through.
For instance, women get preferential parking in garages--near the door and near the security station, so they don't have to walk late at night through a dark garage alone. So, women no longer have to go through the more dangerous parts of the garage. This means that people that aren't women do have to go through the more dangerous parts, and have to more than they would if women didn't get preferential treatment.
Net result: Less danger for women. More danger for men.
Yes, women are more likely to be victims of _sexual_ assault. Men are more likely to be victims of _assault_.
My point is that by focussing specifically on reducing sexual assaults on women you are increasing the chances of assaults on men - even though the statistics demonstrate that men are more vulnerable.
I wasn't disagreeing with the gp, I was highlighting an additional complexity around trying to tackle such perceptions.
adults are unwilling to volunteer to work with kids (because of the bureaucracy, the paperwork and the interviews; it's considerably less bother for an ex-embezzler who's served his time to get a job cleaning bank vaults after all the staff have gone home). yeah, I wanted to become a coach for my archery club. Unfortunately because coaches hold a trusted position they must undertake criminal record checks as they may work with children.
Why the fuck should I submit to such an invasive procedure when all I really want to be able to do is teach adults more effectively? Ironically I'm going to be coaching new archers in 8 days time except because of the stupid rules I haven't had any training in how to coach them.
More ironically, club members often leave me alone with their kids.
Or if he had a clause in his contract worded something along the lines of "damaging the reputation of the company", where being arrested for child pornography could clearly damage the company if the national media chose to frame it as "tacit support for child pornographer by senior managers at.."
It could be that he was invited to leave and given a payment in lieu of notice that was comparable to the likely reward for constructive dismissal. I've known that to happen at more than one company (although never for this particular reason).
Interestingly since men are more likely to be assaulted than women, such measures are inherently sexist and frankly I'd be extremely fucking annoyed were the UK to follow a similar path.
Again, there's a difficult path to tread between reaction, over-reaction and apathy.
Situation 1: She's acting casual to hide her nerves and leaning back because she loves looking at you. Her legs are crossed because she thinks you'll go for the demure type.
Situation 2: She's in a long term relationship, feels secure and hasn't even considered that there may be anything sexual going on. She's touchy-feeling without thinking it means anything, and just happens to get on well with you, hence the mirroring and open body language.
Did you see that? She was acting exactly the same way that you described but with exactly opposite intentions. Oh well.
Marks of Illidari do not cover the cost of repairs, arrows, flasks, elixirs, etc. Using the guild bank merely relocates the grinding from lazy players to more active ones; the grind is still required. Daily quests _are_ a grind. An hour or two may not be much to you, but frankly it bores me shitless. Why should I have to do something I've done dozens of times before for an hour or two just to have some fun? Which part of 'entertainment' does this aspect of the game fulfil?
You miss my point: In order to do X (certain aspects of the game people find fun, amusing, etc) the game forces you to grind for the materials required.
An example: The other night I participated in a raid. 25 people were involved. We had a lot of fun. We also died continually trying to achieve a goal that we haven't previously accomplished.
Before I can participate in another raid, having the same fun, with the same people, so that we can enjoy that aspect of the game, I have to - repair my armour. This costs in-game currency that it will take me half an hour of grinding to earn - replace my consumables. This costs in-game currency that it will take me another half an hour of grinding to earn
In order to experience some of the game content and to engage in a fun activity with friends, I am forced by the game to grind.
No, we don't have to do X. Unfortunately re-visiting old content (the raid zones we've cleared multiple times) is not fun. Re-doing the same Heroic instances is not fun. Repetitively doing the same daily quests is not fun. Grinding for reputation is not fun. What is fun is taking on new challenges (e.g. raid zones we haven't cleared before) and playing with friends (e.g. raiding). And the game is designed such that you have to grind.
Maybe you've raided without grinding. Congratulations. If you and your friends can clear all the raid instances up to and include Mount Hyjal without having to grind for consumables and repairs (even while first learning those encounters) then you're clearly very talented.
Meanwhile Blizzard continue to balance those encounters against suitable equipped players (i.e. they've grinded until all 25 players have the same high level of kit) that are suitably buffed (i.e. they've grinded to get materials/gold to make/buy flasks/elixirs) that are using suitable consumables (that they've grinded to make/buy).
So our mentality isn't forcing grind onto us. We choose to do fun things (exploring new content and taking on new challenges) and the game forces us to grind to do this. Your suggestion that we just need to do what is fun in the game is exactly the one we're following. My point is that the game prevents us doing it without grinding first.
If we're including the set of 'people that do not play the game' then clearly there is minimal grinding forced by WoW on the general populace.
Foolishly I restricted my initial answer to a smaller population segment of just a few million people that pay for access to the whole game and are unable to take advantage of that access without a degree of grinding.
The 25 man content in TBC was balanced around having 25 people turn up wearing the best available equipment, using every flask/potion/food buff/weapon buff available to them and also happening to play well.
While learning how to do those encounters it is inevitable that death will occur.
This means that for a group of people to progress through the game and see more of the content within the game, they have to generate substantial income across the group and use it on repairs and consumables.
The introduction of ZA and the new tokens have to an extent reduced the dependency on consumables, as you can now out-gear the content instead of having to use consumable items to boost you. However acquiring the new equipment still requires repetitive activities such as going through the same few instances day after day to 'earn' tokens.
So there is considerable pressure on people to grind in order to ensure that when they turn up on a 25 man raid they are able to contribute fully. If half the raid don't grind, and thus don't turn up fully equipped with potions, flasks, oils, food and the like, the raid will not progress through new content.
This isn't people playing to get the best of everything. It's people playing to have fun: The raiding and teamwork and social elements of the game are significant factors in its success and longevity.
Sadly the game design mandates grinding to participate in these aspects of the game. I know a lot of people that want to take part in raids, and enjoy the social side of the game, and explore new content, but lack the time or inclination to spend tedious hours grinding for the resources to do so.
This is why there is a market for people selling in-game gold for real-life money, and one reason automated bots such as Glider are attractive.
You wouldn't rather Blizzard made changes to the game that actually made it fun to play, thus obviating the need to automate the mindless tedium involved in certain aspects?
Blizzard suing this guy senseless doesn't help the game in the slightest. Blizzard making it possible to spend more time raiding than is spent farming gold/materials to use while raiding would make the game immensely more enjoyable for a large proportion of the user base.
Maybe if they got their priorities sorted the botting problem would cease to be such an issue anyway.
I installed the alt. browsers first Crikey, how young are you? I was using browsers before MS released an OS with a built-in TCP/IP stack, let alone a web browser!
I do work in a city. I also used to work in a city just 7 miles away. The village I live in advertises a bus service that goes "every 15 minutes".
Sure, if you work 9-5.
Waiting an hour for a bus at 6.10pm is not my idea of getting home after a long day in the office.
Most people can catch public transport. Maybe they should. Frankly they don't want to - it's expensive, unreliable, inconvenient and uncomfortable. Ergo it sucks.
I'll use the built in vim to edit the files. I'm glad all of these tools ar available from my favorite shell, which is built in and which I shall not name to protect myself from religious persecution. You use vim? Persecute him!
Back when OSX was released there were a large number of people that observed it was a good 'nix for the desktop and decided to grab it on that basis. Since then Ubuntu has happened and Linux on the desktop has picked up considerably.
So the administration benefits and pre-installed tools and software are clearly good in OSX but the Free alternatives are there too. I have to be honest I'd rather avoid the inherent Apple lock-in and use Ubuntu instead.
I live in fucking Europe and public transport sucks.
It would take me 4 hours of travelling to get to work from home using public transport, and I'd have to leave the night before to get there before 9am. Plus of course sitting on a bus or a train causes me significant knee issues that lead to constant pain and limping.
Meanwhile when I was forced to take a train to work for three weeks, for the first two weeks a third of the trains were late and all of them were overcrowded with insufficient seating available. Things changed in the last week - two thirds of them were late.
For people making short journeys with predictable times and a reliable public transport service, sure, it can work out. But I'm not such a person, and it sucks, and the ever increasing cost of running a car sucks, and the government's anti-car crusade sucks because frankly I'm going to reach the point where I'm financially better off sitting at home claiming benefits than trying to drive to work.
Probably the reality that quite often their IT systems will indeed break, and they will have to fall back on tried and trusted manual processes.
Also known as a business continuity plan at organisations large enough to have a dedicated risk management team.
IT is expensive. Reliable IT is very expensive. Occasional manual activities that are less productive than online systems are less costly than keeping the online systems online all the time.
I'd rather listen to the Avril Lavigne song. I'd definitely rather watch the video..
At least people know it's shit, they don't pretend it's the greatest thing on the planet, when in reality it's overrated, underspecced and represents the exploitative profiteering of a selfish cunt.
Hmm, more parallels to Apple and Elvis than I realised.
oh and if tax lawyers could allow you to pay less tax, why the fuck aren't you doing it? i'll tell you why, because it's a greatly over exaggerated myth that rich people do this and save heaps of tax. erm. I know tax laws that can be circumvented legally. Doing so is complicated, takes expertise, and thus requires the services of an expensive specialist. Such specialists are sometimes known as tax lawyers.
If the tax payment saved is less than the cost of the specialist, the existence of the hole in the tax codes can not be fruitfully exploited. This means that only those people saving a lot of tax can benefit from paying a specialist to do so, and such people are the ones earning more (and thus being liable for more tax, thus having more to save).
People earning more are described as rich, especially if they're paying a lower proportion of their income in tax compared to the 'average'.
So why the fuck aren't some people doing it? Because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so. It may also be a greatly over exaggerated myth that rich people do this and save heaps of tax, but frankly that doesn't mean it isn't true. Rich people do hire tax lawyers, and the cost of those lawyers is more than paid for through reduced tax liabilities.
Not that this has anything to do with insider trading.
Slashdot Mirror
Hacking a WEP key (while trivial) to access one is on the other hand clearly circumvention of a security mechanism and thus contravenes the computer misuse act.
Where the distribution of security falls down is when a bank customer uses internet banking from their work PC. I do this, and I know that my employer can (and maybe already did) install a screen/mouse/keyboard logger onto my work PC. I have no (official) control over this, it makes my PC more vulnerable than my home one, yet the bank doesn't mandate that people don't use their system from work.
(Since the online banking I use at work is for the account I hold with the bank I work for, I'd really enjoy the conversation in which they suggested my work environment may not be secure
Similar arguments can be made regarding 'net cafes, libraries and any other computer not owned by the user.
The banks have to assume users will be on an insecure PC and act accordingly. Anything else is merely an attempt to bully naive customers.
This isn't such a straightforward decision to make.
$5-6 times a few million customers plus the server-side support plus the application level integration make this a significant level of investment.
Now add in the incompetence of users and the associated increase in calls to the contact centre that this will cause.
Now throw in disabled users you have to support.
Now consider the usability aspects of the other customers who just want to get access to their account.
$5-6 per customer may be cheap. $30m up front, a 5% increase in contact centre costs, potential brand impacts by pissing off customers are not cheap, and need serious consideration against the financial crime and brand impacts of not rolling out such devices.
(Incidentally, where are you finding them for those prices? Last I heard they're an order of magnitude more expensive, although I'll admit I was surprised when I heard that - may be I heard the TCO, rather than the purchase price).
Unless I explicitly give my banking credentials to someone (thus authorising them to act on my behalf) then frankly I don't give a shit who the bank gives money to: I haven't authorised them to give any of _my_ money to anybody else, and so they damn well better give it to me when I ask for it.
If someone defrauds the bank by pretending the bank owes it money (by pretending to be me) then they have defrauded the bank, and not me.
If the bank feel I have been negligent and enabled that to happen then they'd better be able to explain in court why on earth they trusted an almost certainly insecure (i.e. customer PC) source of identification when there are cheap, simple and very available mechanisms available that would considerably boost security and reduce risk.
(I also happen to have my primary accounts at a bank with such additional security mechanisms - although that's coincidence rather than intentional on my part)
My very fucking point is that men are more vulnerable than women. I even linked a fucking US Department of Justice website demonstrating the fact.
Women had 100 units of "danger". Men had 200 units of "danger".
Now women have 50 units and men have 250 units.
This is why feminists are full of shit and you haven't been fucking reading what I'm typing. Which part of "Men are more likely to be assaulted than women" is proving so fucking complicated here?
Go back and re-read what I've been writing. Try and absorb and understand it. Try and step away from your blinkered assumption that women are more vulnerable than men because the fucking facts are pretty fucking clear that they are not.
Yes, I have thought this through. For instance, women get preferential parking in garages--near the door and near the security station, so they don't have to walk late at night through a dark garage alone. So, women no longer have to go through the more dangerous parts of the garage. This means that people that aren't women do have to go through the more dangerous parts, and have to more than they would if women didn't get preferential treatment.
Net result: Less danger for women. More danger for men.
The statistics in the US back up my point exactly:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm
Yes, women are more likely to be victims of _sexual_ assault. Men are more likely to be victims of _assault_.
My point is that by focussing specifically on reducing sexual assaults on women you are increasing the chances of assaults on men - even though the statistics demonstrate that men are more vulnerable.
I wasn't disagreeing with the gp, I was highlighting an additional complexity around trying to tackle such perceptions.
Why the fuck should I submit to such an invasive procedure when all I really want to be able to do is teach adults more effectively? Ironically I'm going to be coaching new archers in 8 days time except because of the stupid rules I haven't had any training in how to coach them.
More ironically, club members often leave me alone with their kids.
It's a very stupid situation.
Or if he had a clause in his contract worded something along the lines of "damaging the reputation of the company", where being arrested for child pornography could clearly damage the company if the national media chose to frame it as "tacit support for child pornographer by senior managers at.."
It could be that he was invited to leave and given a payment in lieu of notice that was comparable to the likely reward for constructive dismissal. I've known that to happen at more than one company (although never for this particular reason).
Yeah, that happened 8 times already just this month.
Which reality are you living in?
Interestingly since men are more likely to be assaulted than women, such measures are inherently sexist and frankly I'd be extremely fucking annoyed were the UK to follow a similar path.
Again, there's a difficult path to tread between reaction, over-reaction and apathy.
Situation 1: She's acting casual to hide her nerves and leaning back because she loves looking at you. Her legs are crossed because she thinks you'll go for the demure type.
Situation 2: She's in a long term relationship, feels secure and hasn't even considered that there may be anything sexual going on. She's touchy-feeling without thinking it means anything, and just happens to get on well with you, hence the mirroring and open body language.
Did you see that? She was acting exactly the same way that you described but with exactly opposite intentions. Oh well.
Marks of Illidari do not cover the cost of repairs, arrows, flasks, elixirs, etc.
Using the guild bank merely relocates the grinding from lazy players to more active ones; the grind is still required.
Daily quests _are_ a grind. An hour or two may not be much to you, but frankly it bores me shitless. Why should I have to do something I've done dozens of times before for an hour or two just to have some fun? Which part of 'entertainment' does this aspect of the game fulfil?
You miss my point: In order to do X (certain aspects of the game people find fun, amusing, etc) the game forces you to grind for the materials required.
An example: The other night I participated in a raid. 25 people were involved. We had a lot of fun. We also died continually trying to achieve a goal that we haven't previously accomplished.
Before I can participate in another raid, having the same fun, with the same people, so that we can enjoy that aspect of the game, I have to
- repair my armour. This costs in-game currency that it will take me half an hour of grinding to earn
- replace my consumables. This costs in-game currency that it will take me another half an hour of grinding to earn
In order to experience some of the game content and to engage in a fun activity with friends, I am forced by the game to grind.
No, we don't have to do X. Unfortunately re-visiting old content (the raid zones we've cleared multiple times) is not fun. Re-doing the same Heroic instances is not fun. Repetitively doing the same daily quests is not fun. Grinding for reputation is not fun. What is fun is taking on new challenges (e.g. raid zones we haven't cleared before) and playing with friends (e.g. raiding). And the game is designed such that you have to grind.
Maybe you've raided without grinding. Congratulations. If you and your friends can clear all the raid instances up to and include Mount Hyjal without having to grind for consumables and repairs (even while first learning those encounters) then you're clearly very talented.
Meanwhile Blizzard continue to balance those encounters against suitable equipped players (i.e. they've grinded until all 25 players have the same high level of kit) that are suitably buffed (i.e. they've grinded to get materials/gold to make/buy flasks/elixirs) that are using suitable consumables (that they've grinded to make/buy).
So our mentality isn't forcing grind onto us. We choose to do fun things (exploring new content and taking on new challenges) and the game forces us to grind to do this. Your suggestion that we just need to do what is fun in the game is exactly the one we're following. My point is that the game prevents us doing it without grinding first.
If we're including the set of 'people that do not play the game' then clearly there is minimal grinding forced by WoW on the general populace.
Foolishly I restricted my initial answer to a smaller population segment of just a few million people that pay for access to the whole game and are unable to take advantage of that access without a degree of grinding.
WoW does mandate it.
The 25 man content in TBC was balanced around having 25 people turn up wearing the best available equipment, using every flask/potion/food buff/weapon buff available to them and also happening to play well.
While learning how to do those encounters it is inevitable that death will occur.
This means that for a group of people to progress through the game and see more of the content within the game, they have to generate substantial income across the group and use it on repairs and consumables.
The introduction of ZA and the new tokens have to an extent reduced the dependency on consumables, as you can now out-gear the content instead of having to use consumable items to boost you. However acquiring the new equipment still requires repetitive activities such as going through the same few instances day after day to 'earn' tokens.
So there is considerable pressure on people to grind in order to ensure that when they turn up on a 25 man raid they are able to contribute fully. If half the raid don't grind, and thus don't turn up fully equipped with potions, flasks, oils, food and the like, the raid will not progress through new content.
This isn't people playing to get the best of everything. It's people playing to have fun: The raiding and teamwork and social elements of the game are significant factors in its success and longevity.
Sadly the game design mandates grinding to participate in these aspects of the game. I know a lot of people that want to take part in raids, and enjoy the social side of the game, and explore new content, but lack the time or inclination to spend tedious hours grinding for the resources to do so.
This is why there is a market for people selling in-game gold for real-life money, and one reason automated bots such as Glider are attractive.
You wouldn't rather Blizzard made changes to the game that actually made it fun to play, thus obviating the need to automate the mindless tedium involved in certain aspects?
Blizzard suing this guy senseless doesn't help the game in the slightest. Blizzard making it possible to spend more time raiding than is spent farming gold/materials to use while raiding would make the game immensely more enjoyable for a large proportion of the user base.
Maybe if they got their priorities sorted the botting problem would cease to be such an issue anyway.
Oh heck. How old am I?
I do work in a city.
I also used to work in a city just 7 miles away. The village I live in advertises a bus service that goes "every 15 minutes".
Sure, if you work 9-5.
Waiting an hour for a bus at 6.10pm is not my idea of getting home after a long day in the office.
Most people can catch public transport. Maybe they should. Frankly they don't want to - it's expensive, unreliable, inconvenient and uncomfortable. Ergo it sucks.
Which is why I didn't say I lived in Europe. I said I lived in fucking Europe.
Geographically and politically this is entirely correct.
Back when OSX was released there were a large number of people that observed it was a good 'nix for the desktop and decided to grab it on that basis. Since then Ubuntu has happened and Linux on the desktop has picked up considerably.
So the administration benefits and pre-installed tools and software are clearly good in OSX but the Free alternatives are there too. I have to be honest I'd rather avoid the inherent Apple lock-in and use Ubuntu instead.
Then again I don't use Adobe products much.
I live in fucking Europe and public transport sucks.
It would take me 4 hours of travelling to get to work from home using public transport, and I'd have to leave the night before to get there before 9am. Plus of course sitting on a bus or a train causes me significant knee issues that lead to constant pain and limping.
Meanwhile when I was forced to take a train to work for three weeks, for the first two weeks a third of the trains were late and all of them were overcrowded with insufficient seating available. Things changed in the last week - two thirds of them were late.
For people making short journeys with predictable times and a reliable public transport service, sure, it can work out. But I'm not such a person, and it sucks, and the ever increasing cost of running a car sucks, and the government's anti-car crusade sucks because frankly I'm going to reach the point where I'm financially better off sitting at home claiming benefits than trying to drive to work.
I bet you like Apple products too..
Probably the reality that quite often their IT systems will indeed break, and they will have to fall back on tried and trusted manual processes.
Also known as a business continuity plan at organisations large enough to have a dedicated risk management team.
IT is expensive. Reliable IT is very expensive. Occasional manual activities that are less productive than online systems are less costly than keeping the online systems online all the time.
I'd rather listen to the Avril Lavigne song. I'd definitely rather watch the video..
At least people know it's shit, they don't pretend it's the greatest thing on the planet, when in reality it's overrated, underspecced and represents the exploitative profiteering of a selfish cunt.
Hmm, more parallels to Apple and Elvis than I realised.
If the tax payment saved is less than the cost of the specialist, the existence of the hole in the tax codes can not be fruitfully exploited. This means that only those people saving a lot of tax can benefit from paying a specialist to do so, and such people are the ones earning more (and thus being liable for more tax, thus having more to save).
People earning more are described as rich, especially if they're paying a lower proportion of their income in tax compared to the 'average'.
So why the fuck aren't some people doing it? Because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so. It may also be a greatly over exaggerated myth that rich people do this and save heaps of tax, but frankly that doesn't mean it isn't true. Rich people do hire tax lawyers, and the cost of those lawyers is more than paid for through reduced tax liabilities.
Not that this has anything to do with insider trading.
Given the current suite of laws and the impossibility of avoiding breaking them, I'd say "being alive" is sufficient indication.