Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me?
As a manager, I don't expect blind loyalty, and I assume that all my subordinates are open to better offers. But if they are actively looking, and devoting time to sending out resumes and talking to recruiters, then I will be reluctant to give them important assignments that they may not be around to complete. If I need to make a headcount reduction or free up a desk for a new hire, then they will be at the top of the list.
When an employee starts looking for a new job, it is usually not just about the money.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you end up firing all your good staff and only having crap left.
I dont even need to look for other jobs, I regularly get emails and calls from recruiters and even employers themselves (from an old resume online). Its my managers job to ensure that I dont get fed up enough to leave.
Your good staff are always going to be headhunted because they're valuable. If they start actively looking for another job you're in serious trouble because they dont actually need to look, this is an indication that they want to leave. Bad staff on the other hand tend to keep their heads down.
Beyond this, a lot of people just look to take a look at the market without the intent to leave.
If you base your redundancy decisions on who has been loyal as opposed to who is capable and who is valuable, you'll end up keeping all the dead wood.
Australia has changed completely to chip cards. Mag swipe is no longer accepted.
Not strictly true; it does still exist as a fallback if chip and contactless fail, and there are still cards out there that lack chips. Australian cards that lack chips are getting much rarer, but I still see a fair few foreign cards that are mag swipe only.
I think what he means is that new cards are not being issued with magstripes. My last card issued in Jan last year didn't.
Having had an EMV capable card since 2007, you couldn't be more wrong.
I've also installed these terminals as they were being rolled out in Australia from 2010 onwards.
* It is slow as molasses. Just unreal!
Its faster than swiping. The hold up is not with the reader, it's with the network. If your merchant has a slow link, any processing is going to be slow.
* It encourages you to forget your card.
Only if you're a forgetful idiot.
The other day it took 5 MINUTES for it to finally work at a store,
Again, this is due to a slow or unreliable link.
* There is still no PIN,
This is due to the implementation in your country, blame your banks or better yet, the technophobes and laggards that are holding you all in the dark ages.
It doesn't protect anything with online purchases
Because it's physical security, not online security. As physical security designed to prevent card cloning it has been extremely effective the world over.
The only fail here is yours, you have to be a complete dolt to leave your card in a machine and walk away. This is a very rare occurrence in Europe, rare to the point of it being practically unheard of, every now and then old Ms Beryl from down the lane leaves it in the local Waitrose, but the staff just give the card back to her along with everything else she forgets on a regular basis the next time she pops by for some milk and jam (but I guess that kind common sense is what you call European style Communism(TM) 'round your parts).
However if you're that forgetful, just start using cash. Its faster (eliminating the slow link problems you're having) and you don't have to retrieve it from a machine where you forgot it. It also cant be stolen online.
EMV has nothing to do with protecting consumers, and has zero effect on security for the consumer. Steal the card, and you can use it, same as before (since it's almost entirely chip & signature rather than chip & PIN)
I cant beleive you wrote that entire post just to say "I know nothing about EMV".
EMV was never designed to protect against fraudulent transactions or to block stolen cards, it was designed to protect against card cloning. In this endeavour it has been hugely successful. Whilst you can clone EMV cards, it's such a PITA that no-one bothers.
Now the real defence that is stopping stolen cards that is going along with EMV is the elimination of signatures for purchases. This is because signatures are easily faked (including removing the old signature and putting your own on, which is pretty redundant as no-one checks it anyway). You cant sign for a purchase any more and enforcing this means getting rid of the old terminals which would ask for a signature.
EMV is about protecting the banks and processing companies,
Again, you're wrong.
EMV terminals push the liability onto the banks and processors, non EMV terminals push the liability onto the merchant. So if a merchant using an EMV terminal has a fraudulent transaction, they're covered and the cost is worn by the bank or processor.
While I understand that the initial release makes the Nexus 5 closer to 3 years, the fact is that my first Nexus 5 was damaged and the second I purchased just before the 5x was out. What I find frustrating about this is that most people think it's just OK that we just scrap 2 year old phones if we want the latest features. It's not as if the hardware can't support most if not all the features.
That is the cost of wanting to live on the bleeding edge. I know people who dont care about the latest features, my previous housemate was happy with a Galaxy Note 3. In fact when it broke, he went out looking for another Note 3 because he was so happy with it and didn't like the Note 5 he bought as a replacement. He managed to find an unopened box on Ebay somewhere out of Hong Kong.
Given that phone contracts have been sold in 24 month periods for donkeys years, 2 years was the defacto standard for many, many years before smartphones became popular. Most people used to turn over their Nokias every 2 years back in the 90's and 00's because their new phone plan came with a new Nokia.
Of course many of us chose to buy our own phones and go on a cheap plan or prepaid/PAYG.
Apple is doing the same and now it's doing it with the Macs. It's not that older hardware can't support it since they are selling slower systems today than some that they will no longer support. The fact is there is no reason for this, other than to push new product.
Not that most people care anyways it's not going into their back yards.
That is Apple. Apple depends on the same people buying their crap year in, year out. Apple reached it's peak number of users a few years back and are steadily dropping. The thing is, Apple fanboys are sad enough to do this.
I've seen plenty of people "go back" from Apple because they just aren't any better than their competitors and they don't really care about what kind of computer they have because it's just a computer. Much the same as it's only the motoring enthusiasts that care a BMW is RWD and a Citroen isn't, only geeks care about things like discreet vs integrated graphics and much like///M fanboys, only Apple fanboys care about brand.
I have been a fan of google. Not as rabid as many of the apple fanboys, but still a fan. Some of these make sense, bundled cloud storage for photos, support for the device (with that price tag you better).
Having read the article, they haven't removed anything from the Nexus upgrade, rather they're pointing out the product specific features of the Pixel. Things like the Pixel Launcher, Google Assistant, Cloud features, so on.
As a happy Nexus 5X owner, I don't really want any of those features. I suspect a lot of Nexus owners will be the same, Pixel and Nexus are different products with different goals, Pixel is more consumer focused where as Nexus was for people who wanted to be on the bleeding edge.
Also given that it's Android, I'm sure there will be applications to get the non-hardware/cloud specific features easily if you want them. Even the Cloud stuff will be pretty easy to get if wanted.
My guess isn't that it comes from Indonesia's peaceful Muslims, but by some sectarian Indonesian graduate of a California liberal arts program.
Not quite, but fairly close.
Its Indonesia, which means its as corrupt as a 20 yr old MS Access database. Basically this is just a politician bignoting themeves by putting forward a law that is imposisble to enforce to make it look like he's doing something other than collecting taxpayer money and bribes.
This kind of shit is commonplace in South East Asia, it happens everywhere from Muslim Malaysia to Buddhist Thailand to the Christian Philippines. Hell, if you want to see some really fucked up laws at the moment, look at the Phils.
However because Indonesia is Muslim, all the RWNJ's get there panties in a twist over it.
Summary, it, the chip and pin solution is designed to make it genuinely harder to use a stolen CC, and the chip and signature is designed to make it harder to counterfeit a CC - while making sure it's NOT harder to use it. Basically, the US solution is designed to make sure the banks are covered and the consumers won't stop using credit cards - while not providing any added benefit to CONSUMERS who had their card stolen.
EMV (Chip and Pin) was designed to stop card cloning, which is has been largely successful for. The EMV spec was written in 1994 when purchasing things over the internet was relatively uncommon.
The problem is that criminals have moved from card cloning to online transaction which EMV has nothing to do with, this does not make EMV bad or ineffective, EMV is more or less physical protection which doesn't help now that electronic purchases are commonplace.
The problem the banks have is that any measures they have to improve security would decrease usage as they would be more painful than buying stuff with cash, direct deposit or using a different payment provider. Right now it's cheaper to keep writing off credit card losses than it would be to lose a portion of the fees they get from credit cards (erm... most people don't know this but the merchant has to pay a percentage of the purchase price in order to accept credit card payments, so everyone pays credit card fees regardless of if the card is "free", this is a huge money spinner for banks).
There are lots of ways to make credit cards secure, however they all require introducing a second factor of authentication that will make people throw the cards into the "too hard" basket as all of these methods rely on treating any information printed on the card (or gleaned from it electronically) completely untrustworthy.
The problem with a conventional yacht is they're fuel pigs. I'd wager Allen's yacht runs a high powered generator continuously to maintain the internal electrical systems, ventilation, and so forth even when docked unless docked at a location where you could get an industrial grade shore power feed.
That isn't even the biggest problem with yachts.
Boats brake down, they need regular seasonal maintenance to remain seaworthy, not just mechanical and electrical but things like anti-fouling just to keep the hull from rusting. BOAT is an acronym, it stands for Bring On Another Thousand.
A bunker is a far better option considering that your likely use for it is either going to be extended periods of nuclear fallout or short lived periods of civil unrest.
Never forget the 7 million Jews who died in car accidents 1941 - 1945.
We're talking about a total number of deaths in excess of 60 million. The point the OP was trying to make is that the majority of them died due to exposure, sickness and malnutrition rather than by enemy action. This has been a pattern repeated in every modern war, Iraq being the latest example. Few people were killed by insurgents or the US, most people died from starvation, illnesses or homelessness as part of the aftermath of the destruction of their country.
Also, it was 6 million Jews and 1 million minorities. Do not be ignorant of history when trying to use history to prove a point, the Jewish people weren't the only one's Hitler wanted to exterminate (the Roma Gypsies were the second largest group, unlike the Jews most were shot on sight by the SS Einsatzgruppen).
Passwords suck. Even with SSO, even with a password manager, even with salting and hashing, passwords suck, and will always suck.
You need an authentication token. *One* authentication token. Microsoft can do it, Google can do it, Facebook can do it (but of course they are not compatible).
Millions of little websites still use passwords.
And then Microsoft makes use of Windows 10 (or compatible Windows Phone devices) mandatory for their SSO. Google randomly decides to just drop the whole SSO business. Facebook suspends your account because some asshole from Brazil has complained about one of your holiday snaps. What now? Will you just rebuild your whole online identity? Or forget about the dozens of sites you were participating in?
This.
Also you'll end up with 15 tokens because some sites only support Microsoft, others Google, Apple will have their own system entirely, then you'll have 156 different Open Source projects doing the same thing with massive flame wars about which token is open/GNU enough.
And woe betide you if you lose a token. RSA tokens work in the corporate world because the organisation manages the tokens, not RSA. If I lose my work token it's a 10 minute job to issue a replacement. Try doing that with a Google or Microsoft provided token, at work I dont have to prove my identity as everyone knows who I am, some random tech flunkie from Microsoft wont know me from a bar of soap so it'll be an ordeal to get a replacement.
Passwords may suck... but there isn't a better alternative.
This kind of customer service used to be appreciated. A follow up asking if the product arrived on time and if it was what they wanted and such was a nicety. I have gotten a few and as long as they aren't multiple ones or a random one asking me to buy other things from their amazon shop I don't care.
No it didn't. It never has... In fact some time ago this behaviour used to be called harassment instead of marketing.
We aren't talking about a post sales call about your new car offering a free oil change here, we're talking about Amazon handing over your email address so you can be spammed over over a $2 trinket bothering you to rate it and buy more shit from the same people. Seriously, I bought a $5 12v car adaptor and they sent me 7 fucking emails after the fact.
Who the fuck is the ADL? Why the fuck do I give a shit?
-- Internet
And this is the correct response.
Every time that you give these people the wind of your fart, it validates them and their method. Ignore and move on.
Seriously though, I find the Anti-ADL to be a bigger bunch of butthurt whiners, who also need to be ignored. Same kind of attention whores, slightly different whine.
I'm glad they're employing smart people on pie in the sky stuff instead of making a profit. They'd eventually fail anyway, might as well do something interesting first.
Like most Ponzi schemes, this is about diverting as many liquid assets as they can into the places where they can only be touched by the owners rather than trying to turn a profit.
Uber was never meant to be a success, it was meant to make its owners rich from other people's money.
So McLaren's response is 100% against what the article says.
You're assuming that the article in the summary is accurate instead of made up to get eyeballs.
Besides this, as McLaren Automotive ins't a PLC (Publicly Listed Company) Apple cant do a takeover without the express approval of the current owners, McLaren Technology Group and more importantly, Ron Dennis.
Why would Apple acquire an maker of overpriced consumer luxury goods? How could that possibly fit in with their current portfolio?
The thing is, McLaren isn't a luxury car manufacturer. That would be someone like Rolls, Maybach or even Jaguar at a stretch.
McLaren are a racing team that makes a few road going race cars.
Rolls Royce would be a cheaper buy from BMW, They bought it off VW for 40 million pounds who paid Vickers 340 million pounds.
Also probably more likely to happen as McLaren have already denied this and it doesn't pass the smell test (McLaren have turned down a few of offers over the years, they're happy being a small, specialist car manufacturer)
FRRRRRRRP! That's the noise my ring makes. Silence that, you asshats!
Mr Hognoxious,
I am hereby ordered to inform you that by the court of East Texas that your ring is in violation of patent number 2438938342 which is owned by our client, as such we are to, immediately and without condition, forcefully install this cork. Attempts to remove the cork will be met by severe fines or imprisonment.
Sincerley
A Hats,
Senior partner,
A, S and S Hats, attorneys at law.
(A) These evil scoundrels are cheating on the government tests
(B) The people who are designing the government tests epically suck at their jobs, should be fired, and have competent people hired in their places
I'm going to have to vote "B" here, folks.
C: Marketing people see any mandated metric as something to be gamed in order to get an edge over the competition. Marketers tell this to managers, managers order B to game the test.
Like fuel efficiency ratings on cars, I don't trust energy efficiency tests on consumer electronics to be accurate. I'm sure they're real, but were done under laboratory conditions which probably involved a lot of settings turned down.
The UK can of course leave the EU and choose to allow free movement of people in exchange for access to the single market.
Assuming we don't have a general election where the major parties stand on a Breturn platform, that is the most likely scenario.
I find it ironic as this will stick in the craw of all the hardcore Brexiters, which will be entertaining.
Right now, both the UK and EU are lining up attack dogs to go at each others throats with the UK appointing known Brexiters to the exit strategy and the EU posting people who are known to be anti-British to be their opposite numbers. Good time to get out the popcorn. My greatest regret is that Nigel Farage isn't in the middle of it, in a battle of wits, Farage is as effective as a banana in a gunfight.
...to save me and my family from all the "excellent drivers" who are busy on their phones while speeding down the freeway. Some of them, no doubt, posting diatribes about Big Government taking away their right to maintain complete and perfect control over their vehicle's performance.
Why do you think that people wont have the option to manually control autonomous cars? Even more so, why do you think they'll be forced by regulation?
The insurance industry will oppose it, motoring enthusiasts will oppose it. Average people will oppose it because the autonomous car will not speed or cut people off.
Plus the govt wont want to miss all that lovely tax and fine revenue. Manually controlled cars will be with us for decades... or centuries to come..
Tell me that's not Apple patenting a paper bag and how the evil "Hateurs" are twisting it out of proportion.
Also your knowledge of history sucks.
Henry Ford builds a mechanical horse.
Henry Ford did not patent the automobile. That would be George B Selden and he held it hostage until Ford challenged him in court. Selden was a lot like Apple, making patents and threatening others with them to extort licensing fees. Probably not the first patent troll, but one of the pioneers in the field. Same as Ford didn't invent the car, but was instrumental in making the car what it is today (Ford's major contributions were in the manufacturing process, the Model T was actually a terrible car but it was affordable and easily built which was a first for cars).
Basically, your entire post is so horribly, horribly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me?
As a manager, I don't expect blind loyalty, and I assume that all my subordinates are open to better offers. But if they are actively looking, and devoting time to sending out resumes and talking to recruiters, then I will be reluctant to give them important assignments that they may not be around to complete. If I need to make a headcount reduction or free up a desk for a new hire, then they will be at the top of the list.
When an employee starts looking for a new job, it is usually not just about the money.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you end up firing all your good staff and only having crap left.
I dont even need to look for other jobs, I regularly get emails and calls from recruiters and even employers themselves (from an old resume online). Its my managers job to ensure that I dont get fed up enough to leave.
Your good staff are always going to be headhunted because they're valuable. If they start actively looking for another job you're in serious trouble because they dont actually need to look, this is an indication that they want to leave. Bad staff on the other hand tend to keep their heads down.
Beyond this, a lot of people just look to take a look at the market without the intent to leave.
If you base your redundancy decisions on who has been loyal as opposed to who is capable and who is valuable, you'll end up keeping all the dead wood.
Australia has changed completely to chip cards. Mag swipe is no longer accepted.
Not strictly true; it does still exist as a fallback if chip and contactless fail, and there are still cards out there that lack chips. Australian cards that lack chips are getting much rarer, but I still see a fair few foreign cards that are mag swipe only.
I think what he means is that new cards are not being issued with magstripes. My last card issued in Jan last year didn't.
Its faster than swiping. The hold up is not with the reader, it's with the network. If your merchant has a slow link, any processing is going to be slow.
Only if you're a forgetful idiot.
Again, this is due to a slow or unreliable link.
This is due to the implementation in your country, blame your banks or better yet, the technophobes and laggards that are holding you all in the dark ages.
Because it's physical security, not online security. As physical security designed to prevent card cloning it has been extremely effective the world over.
The only fail here is yours, you have to be a complete dolt to leave your card in a machine and walk away. This is a very rare occurrence in Europe, rare to the point of it being practically unheard of, every now and then old Ms Beryl from down the lane leaves it in the local Waitrose, but the staff just give the card back to her along with everything else she forgets on a regular basis the next time she pops by for some milk and jam (but I guess that kind common sense is what you call European style Communism(TM) 'round your parts).
However if you're that forgetful, just start using cash. Its faster (eliminating the slow link problems you're having) and you don't have to retrieve it from a machine where you forgot it. It also cant be stolen online.
EMV has nothing to do with protecting consumers, and has zero effect on security for the consumer. Steal the card, and you can use it, same as before (since it's almost entirely chip & signature rather than chip & PIN)
I cant beleive you wrote that entire post just to say "I know nothing about EMV".
EMV was never designed to protect against fraudulent transactions or to block stolen cards, it was designed to protect against card cloning. In this endeavour it has been hugely successful. Whilst you can clone EMV cards, it's such a PITA that no-one bothers.
Now the real defence that is stopping stolen cards that is going along with EMV is the elimination of signatures for purchases. This is because signatures are easily faked (including removing the old signature and putting your own on, which is pretty redundant as no-one checks it anyway). You cant sign for a purchase any more and enforcing this means getting rid of the old terminals which would ask for a signature. EMV is about protecting the banks and processing companies,
Again, you're wrong.
EMV terminals push the liability onto the banks and processors, non EMV terminals push the liability onto the merchant. So if a merchant using an EMV terminal has a fraudulent transaction, they're covered and the cost is worn by the bank or processor.
While I understand that the initial release makes the Nexus 5 closer to 3 years, the fact is that my first Nexus 5 was damaged and the second I purchased just before the 5x was out. What I find frustrating about this is that most people think it's just OK that we just scrap 2 year old phones if we want the latest features. It's not as if the hardware can't support most if not all the features.
That is the cost of wanting to live on the bleeding edge. I know people who dont care about the latest features, my previous housemate was happy with a Galaxy Note 3. In fact when it broke, he went out looking for another Note 3 because he was so happy with it and didn't like the Note 5 he bought as a replacement. He managed to find an unopened box on Ebay somewhere out of Hong Kong.
Given that phone contracts have been sold in 24 month periods for donkeys years, 2 years was the defacto standard for many, many years before smartphones became popular. Most people used to turn over their Nokias every 2 years back in the 90's and 00's because their new phone plan came with a new Nokia.
Of course many of us chose to buy our own phones and go on a cheap plan or prepaid/PAYG.
Apple is doing the same and now it's doing it with the Macs. It's not that older hardware can't support it since they are selling slower systems today than some that they will no longer support. The fact is there is no reason for this, other than to push new product.
Not that most people care anyways it's not going into their back yards.
That is Apple. Apple depends on the same people buying their crap year in, year out. Apple reached it's peak number of users a few years back and are steadily dropping. The thing is, Apple fanboys are sad enough to do this.
///M fanboys, only Apple fanboys care about brand.
I've seen plenty of people "go back" from Apple because they just aren't any better than their competitors and they don't really care about what kind of computer they have because it's just a computer. Much the same as it's only the motoring enthusiasts that care a BMW is RWD and a Citroen isn't, only geeks care about things like discreet vs integrated graphics and much like
I have been a fan of google. Not as rabid as many of the apple fanboys, but still a fan. Some of these make sense, bundled cloud storage for photos, support for the device (with that price tag you better).
Having read the article, they haven't removed anything from the Nexus upgrade, rather they're pointing out the product specific features of the Pixel. Things like the Pixel Launcher, Google Assistant, Cloud features, so on.
As a happy Nexus 5X owner, I don't really want any of those features. I suspect a lot of Nexus owners will be the same, Pixel and Nexus are different products with different goals, Pixel is more consumer focused where as Nexus was for people who wanted to be on the bleeding edge.
Also given that it's Android, I'm sure there will be applications to get the non-hardware/cloud specific features easily if you want them. Even the Cloud stuff will be pretty easy to get if wanted.
My guess isn't that it comes from Indonesia's peaceful Muslims, but by some sectarian Indonesian graduate of a California liberal arts program.
Not quite, but fairly close.
Its Indonesia, which means its as corrupt as a 20 yr old MS Access database. Basically this is just a politician bignoting themeves by putting forward a law that is imposisble to enforce to make it look like he's doing something other than collecting taxpayer money and bribes.
This kind of shit is commonplace in South East Asia, it happens everywhere from Muslim Malaysia to Buddhist Thailand to the Christian Philippines. Hell, if you want to see some really fucked up laws at the moment, look at the Phils.
However because Indonesia is Muslim, all the RWNJ's get there panties in a twist over it.
Summary, it, the chip and pin solution is designed to make it genuinely harder to use a stolen CC, and the chip and signature is designed to make it harder to counterfeit a CC - while making sure it's NOT harder to use it. Basically, the US solution is designed to make sure the banks are covered and the consumers won't stop using credit cards - while not providing any added benefit to CONSUMERS who had their card stolen.
EMV (Chip and Pin) was designed to stop card cloning, which is has been largely successful for. The EMV spec was written in 1994 when purchasing things over the internet was relatively uncommon.
The problem is that criminals have moved from card cloning to online transaction which EMV has nothing to do with, this does not make EMV bad or ineffective, EMV is more or less physical protection which doesn't help now that electronic purchases are commonplace.
The problem the banks have is that any measures they have to improve security would decrease usage as they would be more painful than buying stuff with cash, direct deposit or using a different payment provider. Right now it's cheaper to keep writing off credit card losses than it would be to lose a portion of the fees they get from credit cards (erm... most people don't know this but the merchant has to pay a percentage of the purchase price in order to accept credit card payments, so everyone pays credit card fees regardless of if the card is "free", this is a huge money spinner for banks).
There are lots of ways to make credit cards secure, however they all require introducing a second factor of authentication that will make people throw the cards into the "too hard" basket as all of these methods rely on treating any information printed on the card (or gleaned from it electronically) completely untrustworthy.
You can pretend Apple is all about loyal Fanbois,
Which is why 70-80% of new iphone sales are to existing Iphone users.
a 16 percent decline from the 61 million in the same quarter the year before.
So they are now even more dependent on loyal Fanbois.
The problem with a conventional yacht is they're fuel pigs. I'd wager Allen's yacht runs a high powered generator continuously to maintain the internal electrical systems, ventilation, and so forth even when docked unless docked at a location where you could get an industrial grade shore power feed.
That isn't even the biggest problem with yachts.
Boats brake down, they need regular seasonal maintenance to remain seaworthy, not just mechanical and electrical but things like anti-fouling just to keep the hull from rusting. BOAT is an acronym, it stands for Bring On Another Thousand.
A bunker is a far better option considering that your likely use for it is either going to be extended periods of nuclear fallout or short lived periods of civil unrest.
Never forget the 7 million Jews who died in car accidents 1941 - 1945.
We're talking about a total number of deaths in excess of 60 million. The point the OP was trying to make is that the majority of them died due to exposure, sickness and malnutrition rather than by enemy action. This has been a pattern repeated in every modern war, Iraq being the latest example. Few people were killed by insurgents or the US, most people died from starvation, illnesses or homelessness as part of the aftermath of the destruction of their country.
Also, it was 6 million Jews and 1 million minorities. Do not be ignorant of history when trying to use history to prove a point, the Jewish people weren't the only one's Hitler wanted to exterminate (the Roma Gypsies were the second largest group, unlike the Jews most were shot on sight by the SS Einsatzgruppen).
Passwords suck. Even with SSO, even with a password manager, even with salting and hashing, passwords suck, and will always suck.
You need an authentication token. *One* authentication token. Microsoft can do it, Google can do it, Facebook can do it (but of course they are not compatible).
Millions of little websites still use passwords.
And then Microsoft makes use of Windows 10 (or compatible Windows Phone devices) mandatory for their SSO. Google randomly decides to just drop the whole SSO business. Facebook suspends your account because some asshole from Brazil has complained about one of your holiday snaps. What now? Will you just rebuild your whole online identity? Or forget about the dozens of sites you were participating in?
This.
Also you'll end up with 15 tokens because some sites only support Microsoft, others Google, Apple will have their own system entirely, then you'll have 156 different Open Source projects doing the same thing with massive flame wars about which token is open/GNU enough.
And woe betide you if you lose a token. RSA tokens work in the corporate world because the organisation manages the tokens, not RSA. If I lose my work token it's a 10 minute job to issue a replacement. Try doing that with a Google or Microsoft provided token, at work I dont have to prove my identity as everyone knows who I am, some random tech flunkie from Microsoft wont know me from a bar of soap so it'll be an ordeal to get a replacement.
Passwords may suck... but there isn't a better alternative.
This kind of customer service used to be appreciated. A follow up asking if the product arrived on time and if it was what they wanted and such was a nicety. I have gotten a few and as long as they aren't multiple ones or a random one asking me to buy other things from their amazon shop I don't care.
No it didn't. It never has... In fact some time ago this behaviour used to be called harassment instead of marketing. We aren't talking about a post sales call about your new car offering a free oil change here, we're talking about Amazon handing over your email address so you can be spammed over over a $2 trinket bothering you to rate it and buy more shit from the same people. Seriously, I bought a $5 12v car adaptor and they sent me 7 fucking emails after the fact.
Who the fuck is the ADL? Why the fuck do I give a shit?
-- Internet
And this is the correct response.
Every time that you give these people the wind of your fart, it validates them and their method. Ignore and move on.
Seriously though, I find the Anti-ADL to be a bigger bunch of butthurt whiners, who also need to be ignored. Same kind of attention whores, slightly different whine.
I'm glad they're employing smart people on pie in the sky stuff instead of making a profit. They'd eventually fail anyway, might as well do something interesting first.
Like most Ponzi schemes, this is about diverting as many liquid assets as they can into the places where they can only be touched by the owners rather than trying to turn a profit.
Uber was never meant to be a success, it was meant to make its owners rich from other people's money.
Uninformed opinions are turning our cops into blathering idiots.
FTFY
FTFTFY.
energy comes from combining hydrogen stored in tanks on the train
Thus confirming my theory: Germans Love Hydrogen.
hope they will not name it hindenburg.
If they continue the naming convention, this will be called the Gauck and is likely to be just as bad for Germany.
... the question on everyone's minds is, "why can't they both lose?"
Children arguing about who can do 4K in 2016.... That's cute.
Signed,
PC Gaming.
You're assuming that the article in the summary is accurate instead of made up to get eyeballs.
Besides this, as McLaren Automotive ins't a PLC (Publicly Listed Company) Apple cant do a takeover without the express approval of the current owners, McLaren Technology Group and more importantly, Ron Dennis.
Why would Apple acquire an maker of overpriced consumer luxury goods? How could that possibly fit in with their current portfolio?
The thing is, McLaren isn't a luxury car manufacturer. That would be someone like Rolls, Maybach or even Jaguar at a stretch.
McLaren are a racing team that makes a few road going race cars.
Rolls Royce would be a cheaper buy from BMW, They bought it off VW for 40 million pounds who paid Vickers 340 million pounds.
Also probably more likely to happen as McLaren have already denied this and it doesn't pass the smell test (McLaren have turned down a few of offers over the years, they're happy being a small, specialist car manufacturer)
FRRRRRRRP! That's the noise my ring makes. Silence that, you asshats!
Mr Hognoxious,
I am hereby ordered to inform you that by the court of East Texas that your ring is in violation of patent number 2438938342 which is owned by our client, as such we are to, immediately and without condition, forcefully install this cork. Attempts to remove the cork will be met by severe fines or imprisonment.
Sincerley
A Hats,
Senior partner,
A, S and S Hats, attorneys at law.
What's our take away on this supposed to be?
(A) These evil scoundrels are cheating on the government tests
(B) The people who are designing the government tests epically suck at their jobs, should be fired, and have competent people hired in their places
I'm going to have to vote "B" here, folks.
C: Marketing people see any mandated metric as something to be gamed in order to get an edge over the competition. Marketers tell this to managers, managers order B to game the test.
Like fuel efficiency ratings on cars, I don't trust energy efficiency tests on consumer electronics to be accurate. I'm sure they're real, but were done under laboratory conditions which probably involved a lot of settings turned down.
Assuming we don't have a general election where the major parties stand on a Breturn platform, that is the most likely scenario.
I find it ironic as this will stick in the craw of all the hardcore Brexiters, which will be entertaining.
Right now, both the UK and EU are lining up attack dogs to go at each others throats with the UK appointing known Brexiters to the exit strategy and the EU posting people who are known to be anti-British to be their opposite numbers. Good time to get out the popcorn. My greatest regret is that Nigel Farage isn't in the middle of it, in a battle of wits, Farage is as effective as a banana in a gunfight.
...to save me and my family from all the "excellent drivers" who are busy on their phones while speeding down the freeway. Some of them, no doubt, posting diatribes about Big Government taking away their right to maintain complete and perfect control over their vehicle's performance.
Why do you think that people wont have the option to manually control autonomous cars? Even more so, why do you think they'll be forced by regulation?
The insurance industry will oppose it, motoring enthusiasts will oppose it. Average people will oppose it because the autonomous car will not speed or cut people off.
Plus the govt wont want to miss all that lovely tax and fine revenue. Manually controlled cars will be with us for decades... or centuries to come..
Anything sounds absurd if worded the right way.
Are you that tragic a fanboy, direct from the patent applicaiton, so Apple's words, not mine:
1. A retail paper bag, comprising: a bag container formed of white paper with at least 60% post-consumer content.
US Patent application 20160264304
Here's a picture
Tell me that's not Apple patenting a paper bag and how the evil "Hateurs" are twisting it out of proportion.
Also your knowledge of history sucks.
Henry Ford builds a mechanical horse.
Henry Ford did not patent the automobile. That would be George B Selden and he held it hostage until Ford challenged him in court. Selden was a lot like Apple, making patents and threatening others with them to extort licensing fees. Probably not the first patent troll, but one of the pioneers in the field. Same as Ford didn't invent the car, but was instrumental in making the car what it is today (Ford's major contributions were in the manufacturing process, the Model T was actually a terrible car but it was affordable and easily built which was a first for cars).
Basically, your entire post is so horribly, horribly wrong.