Ron Paul was 'predicting' the current situation since well into 90-s. So no, it doesn't count.
If in the 1990s someone told you, "Your computer won't run the most popular OS in 2011." Would they have been wrong? Ron Paul had the foresight to see that the economy was on an unsustainable course back in the 1990s, long before the dot com crash. It does not take a genius to look at the history of fiat currencies and the inevitable boom / bust cycles to say, "This is going to come off the rails eventually."
And during the crisis he's been constantly mis-predicting, well, everything (runaway inflation, hellllo?).
Outside of CPI, inflation has been going up significantly.
And last, but not least - his recipes to help the economy are disastrous.
They are now. If they had been implemented earlier we might have had a chance. As it stands, the middle class in America will be all but completely wiped out in the next generation. There is not anything that Ron Paul, or anyone else can do about it. The dynamics of the world have shifted. The American standard of living will only decline from here on out.
Yes it can. If you are arrested and your vehicle is impounded, anything in the vehicle is fair game. It's just like if you and a friend are pulled over, and your friend tosses a bag of crack into the backseat. Legally, since the driver is "in control of the vehicle" then the crack belongs to the driver, unless the passenger claims it.
The phone could be stuffed into the wheel well of the car and it is still fair game for search if the driver is arrested.
Moral of the story, if the police are searching your phone it is probably the least of your worries. You should be focusing on what you were arrested for in the first place.
For those of you too busy to read the wiki page, what that means is that the police officer has to have already arrested a person for some other lawful cause before they can search the phone. As a corollary to that, if the original arrest is not lawful then anything discovered while searching the phone will be inadmissible in court.
It is not like the police can pull you over for a traffic stop and then start rooting through your phone.
If you are really concerned about having your phone searched then password protect it. If you want to go one step further, set a very low incorrect password lockout threshold and let the phone wipe itself. My Blackberry wipes itself after 10 incorrect tries. There is probably a way to adjust that setting. Set it to three.
Depending on the environment, it is very easy to detect a copy operation. Due to the sensitive of the data we deal with, we have controls in place. Every time a drive is attached / detached from the server it is recorded. Internet connectivity is prohibited. ACLs on the servers prevent mounting remote file systems, and even if they could be mounted, the mount would be logged.
In my environment, it would be much easier to "lose" a backup tape than to simply copy the records. Of course, that is not entirely true either. The tapes need to be signed out of the data center. Given that, "theft" is pretty much the only viable alternative.
Lol, this guy took the tapes out to his CAR, would you feel ok walking around with your companies database in your briefcase?
I have to take drives to and from the data center with confidential and sensitive data on them. They are TrueCrypted with strong pass phrases, but just having the data in my possession makes me hesitant to go anywhere other than directly to/from the data center and office. Stop at Starbucks? No way! What if someone steals the drive during the 5 minutes it takes me to get my coffee!?!
On another note, have these people never heard of Iron Mountain? Those guys are there for a reason, and that reason is not because it is hard to transport a backup tape from point A to point B. They are there to manage to the risk. When was the last time we read a story, "Iron Mountain lost backup tapes uber confidential data."??
The Apple stores I go to are way too busy to provide a "relaxed environment."
That was my first impression when I read the summary. I have been to an Apple store once. It was so busy and hectic seeming that I found it uncomfortable. I would never associate "relaxed environment" with the experience that I had at the Apple store.
It was really too bad. I went in there with the intention of buying what I needed and perhaps toying around with the products for a little bit. By the time the sales guy came out of the back room with the product I needed (it wasn't even on display), I was antsy to get out of there. The only saving grace for the place was that they empowered their employees to process my transaction on the spot and I did not have to wait in line for a cashier.
Every hipster I've ever met was more into their fixed gear bike than technology product like Linux. They like Apple because Apple does not get virii. Virii are unhip.
You have a job, access to the internet, a grocery store filled with food, police and fire protection, and you can probably keep your wife alive. In most of the world, your life would be dead and you would be trying to subsist for a month on less than you probably make in a day (assuming you even had a job).
Those guys wanted to stick to to the man and buck the system. They knew what they were getting into, or at least they should have. It was well known even back in the 1990s that the Feds and corporate America had zero interest in actually securing their systems. The systems are wide open (more or less), but the punishment for accessing them without permission is draconian. There is a reason I got out of the "computer underground" when I turned 18. I had my mischievous fun when I was a minor and then I saw the writing on the wall when people I knew personally had to deal with the Feds. The Feds do not screw around when it comes to computer crime.
At the end of the day when all is said and done, LulzSec and Anonymous have not really stood up against the real oppressors. They have not taken down the Federal Reserve. They are not going after Wall Street and the various financial entities that really control "the system" that they are so against. Those are real hardened targets. They went after Sony. Really though, what is Sony doing to oppress the people of the world? They run a video game network that people use to decompress and chill out for a little bit. Does Sony have shady business practices? Sure. But the answer to that is to not buy their products. It's not like the Playstation 3 is really the core of SkyNet and PSN is the network that is enabling it to become sentient so that it can rule us all with a digitized iron fist.
The central banks cannot prop it up any longer. The correction is pretty much imminent. De-leveraging has to happen. The credit bubble is going to burst. Either there needs to be serious debt forgiveness (yeah right, like that will ever happen) or the economy needs to deal with the reality that consumers are tapped out and cannot take on any more debt.
There is some discussion about trying to tap emerging markets, or trying to increase consumer demand in China, but that will not go anywhere. China is way overheated at this point. The emerging markets rely on America to buy their exports. How are they going to take on debt if they cannot sell anything?
The stock market and the DJIA are American centric. Americans are tapped out. The party is over. The only way the economy can go is down. It needs to crash so fully, and our currency needs to be devalued so significantly that it will finally become cost competitive to manufacture here in America again. We cannot have real growth unless we make things.
If you truly have to check on it, you better bill for the entire time. Unless you can really leave it alone for hours and go do something else. In that case, bill for the time you spend "working". If there is any chance that the process is going to error out or stop some time and you have to be there to start it again, charge for the entire time. It is not like you can really go do something else.
What are these guys claiming? That known plaintext at the start of an SSL session plus access to all packets passing between client and server means further characters can eventually be worked out?
That seems to be what they are claiming. If you know at least SOME of what is encrypted, it becomes much easier to decrypt the rest.
This is a good point. Lexis Nexis is no joke. I did not realize quite how evil they were until I was working for a non-profit, and the Lexis Nexis people were offering to profile the donors to the non-profit. They were going to provide metrics on their "capacity to give" based on a whole slew of semi-public financial information like real estate holdings, trusts, etc.
I do research on any company that I interview with. Especially in this market, it is important to understand as much about the company and their industry as possible. With LinkedIn you can even learn about the individuals who might be on your team or even be your boss. I take my employment seriously, and just as interviews will have questions for me, I will have questions for them. Mostly I focus on budgets, revenues, five year plans and things like that. If the company cannot demonstrate that they are A) in a good position and B) thinking long term, I do not have any interest in working there.
Just the other day I was approached by a recruiter looking to fill a sysadmin position that pays 115k a year. Sysadmin, 115k a year. Sounds good. Too bad they are in the digital projector business, and their many clients are movie theaters and the government. With the economy contracting, fewer people are going to movies. With the budget messes in Washington DC, there are going to be fewer and fewer large contracts for non-critical things like digital projectors. I took a pass on that position.
Of course they would still have to prove that this actually was the reason for the delay.
Enter electronic discovery. Expect HP to be giving up all of their emails involving any communication with the board for at least the last fiscal year.
The point I was trying to make and that I failed to convey was that at the time, Google was new. Google has (and arguably still has) the best search engine on the internet. "Everyone" was excited about Google and so Gmail had an air of exclusivity about it when it came out. There is nothing special or exclusive about G+. It is "just another Facebook" in the eyes of their target audience.
I remember reading a couple of stories about the first shares of stock that were floated by Goldman Sachs. The SEC prevented Goldman from selling the shares in the United States, so GS had to go to Asia to get rid of them. It was speculated that the shares were so over valued that the SEC was protecting American investors. Is that still the case? Can the shares even be offered in the US?
That is the same experience I had. There was a faint interest in G+ at first, but once everyone realized that there were not very many people using it and that everyone was "still on Facebook", the impetus to use G+ dwindled.
Like so much out of Google, they blew it again. "Limited betas" and "exclusivity" works great when you have something that nobody else does. Gmail was a great example of that. Free webmail was a fairly new phenomena and webmail with a real amount of storage was unheard of. In that case, the limited release and needing an invite from your friends worked wonders. People wanted it.
Nobody really wants G+. Everyone who wants a social network with their friends and family already has one. It is called Facebook.
Google should have kept the lid on their social network, refined it internally, then launched it to EVERYONE when it was ready. Instead they offered up some half-assed launch, a few people checked it out, and now nobody cares.
Slashdot Mirror
You're all over the map. What does disorderly conduct have to do with the drug war?
Ron Paul was 'predicting' the current situation since well into 90-s. So no, it doesn't count.
If in the 1990s someone told you, "Your computer won't run the most popular OS in 2011." Would they have been wrong? Ron Paul had the foresight to see that the economy was on an unsustainable course back in the 1990s, long before the dot com crash. It does not take a genius to look at the history of fiat currencies and the inevitable boom / bust cycles to say, "This is going to come off the rails eventually."
And during the crisis he's been constantly mis-predicting, well, everything (runaway inflation, hellllo?).
Outside of CPI, inflation has been going up significantly.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=59409
And last, but not least - his recipes to help the economy are disastrous.
They are now. If they had been implemented earlier we might have had a chance. As it stands, the middle class in America will be all but completely wiped out in the next generation. There is not anything that Ron Paul, or anyone else can do about it. The dynamics of the world have shifted. The American standard of living will only decline from here on out.
Yes it can. If you are arrested and your vehicle is impounded, anything in the vehicle is fair game. It's just like if you and a friend are pulled over, and your friend tosses a bag of crack into the backseat. Legally, since the driver is "in control of the vehicle" then the crack belongs to the driver, unless the passenger claims it.
The phone could be stuffed into the wheel well of the car and it is still fair game for search if the driver is arrested.
Moral of the story, if the police are searching your phone it is probably the least of your worries. You should be focusing on what you were arrested for in the first place.
I hate to bring reality into this discussion, but the bill that was passed allows the police to search phones of people "incident to arrest".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a_lawful_arrest
For those of you too busy to read the wiki page, what that means is that the police officer has to have already arrested a person for some other lawful cause before they can search the phone. As a corollary to that, if the original arrest is not lawful then anything discovered while searching the phone will be inadmissible in court.
It is not like the police can pull you over for a traffic stop and then start rooting through your phone.
If you are really concerned about having your phone searched then password protect it. If you want to go one step further, set a very low incorrect password lockout threshold and let the phone wipe itself. My Blackberry wipes itself after 10 incorrect tries. There is probably a way to adjust that setting. Set it to three.
Your NLP is good.
it's still a good idea to encrypt any tape that leaves the facility, whether or not it contains personal data.
Agreed. Encrypting the backup is standard practice. Or at least it should be if the admins are competent at what they do.
Depending on the environment, it is very easy to detect a copy operation. Due to the sensitive of the data we deal with, we have controls in place. Every time a drive is attached / detached from the server it is recorded. Internet connectivity is prohibited. ACLs on the servers prevent mounting remote file systems, and even if they could be mounted, the mount would be logged.
In my environment, it would be much easier to "lose" a backup tape than to simply copy the records. Of course, that is not entirely true either. The tapes need to be signed out of the data center. Given that, "theft" is pretty much the only viable alternative.
Lol, this guy took the tapes out to his CAR, would you feel ok walking around with your companies database in your briefcase?
I have to take drives to and from the data center with confidential and sensitive data on them. They are TrueCrypted with strong pass phrases, but just having the data in my possession makes me hesitant to go anywhere other than directly to/from the data center and office. Stop at Starbucks? No way! What if someone steals the drive during the 5 minutes it takes me to get my coffee!?!
On another note, have these people never heard of Iron Mountain? Those guys are there for a reason, and that reason is not because it is hard to transport a backup tape from point A to point B. They are there to manage to the risk. When was the last time we read a story, "Iron Mountain lost backup tapes uber confidential data."??
The Apple stores I go to are way too busy to provide a "relaxed environment."
That was my first impression when I read the summary. I have been to an Apple store once. It was so busy and hectic seeming that I found it uncomfortable. I would never associate "relaxed environment" with the experience that I had at the Apple store.
It was really too bad. I went in there with the intention of buying what I needed and perhaps toying around with the products for a little bit. By the time the sales guy came out of the back room with the product I needed (it wasn't even on display), I was antsy to get out of there. The only saving grace for the place was that they empowered their employees to process my transaction on the spot and I did not have to wait in line for a cashier.
Every hipster I've ever met was more into their fixed gear bike than technology product like Linux. They like Apple because Apple does not get virii. Virii are unhip.
You have a job, access to the internet, a grocery store filled with food, police and fire protection, and you can probably keep your wife alive. In most of the world, your life would be dead and you would be trying to subsist for a month on less than you probably make in a day (assuming you even had a job).
Those guys wanted to stick to to the man and buck the system. They knew what they were getting into, or at least they should have. It was well known even back in the 1990s that the Feds and corporate America had zero interest in actually securing their systems. The systems are wide open (more or less), but the punishment for accessing them without permission is draconian. There is a reason I got out of the "computer underground" when I turned 18. I had my mischievous fun when I was a minor and then I saw the writing on the wall when people I knew personally had to deal with the Feds. The Feds do not screw around when it comes to computer crime.
At the end of the day when all is said and done, LulzSec and Anonymous have not really stood up against the real oppressors. They have not taken down the Federal Reserve. They are not going after Wall Street and the various financial entities that really control "the system" that they are so against. Those are real hardened targets. They went after Sony. Really though, what is Sony doing to oppress the people of the world? They run a video game network that people use to decompress and chill out for a little bit. Does Sony have shady business practices? Sure. But the answer to that is to not buy their products. It's not like the Playstation 3 is really the core of SkyNet and PSN is the network that is enabling it to become sentient so that it can rule us all with a digitized iron fist.
I just know that 3 months from now, there is going to be a lot less credit in the world.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-markets-20110922,0,6254504.story
The central banks cannot prop it up any longer. The correction is pretty much imminent. De-leveraging has to happen. The credit bubble is going to burst. Either there needs to be serious debt forgiveness (yeah right, like that will ever happen) or the economy needs to deal with the reality that consumers are tapped out and cannot take on any more debt.
There is some discussion about trying to tap emerging markets, or trying to increase consumer demand in China, but that will not go anywhere. China is way overheated at this point. The emerging markets rely on America to buy their exports. How are they going to take on debt if they cannot sell anything?
The stock market and the DJIA are American centric. Americans are tapped out. The party is over. The only way the economy can go is down. It needs to crash so fully, and our currency needs to be devalued so significantly that it will finally become cost competitive to manufacture here in America again. We cannot have real growth unless we make things.
Yes, search on a smart phone is a different market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_search
Come back in three months and let me know how the market is doing compared to 2006. There is a HUGE correction on the way.
If you truly have to check on it, you better bill for the entire time. Unless you can really leave it alone for hours and go do something else. In that case, bill for the time you spend "working". If there is any chance that the process is going to error out or stop some time and you have to be there to start it again, charge for the entire time. It is not like you can really go do something else.
What are these guys claiming? That known plaintext at the start of an SSL session plus access to all packets passing between client and server means further characters can eventually be worked out?
That seems to be what they are claiming. If you know at least SOME of what is encrypted, it becomes much easier to decrypt the rest.
This is a good point. Lexis Nexis is no joke. I did not realize quite how evil they were until I was working for a non-profit, and the Lexis Nexis people were offering to profile the donors to the non-profit. They were going to provide metrics on their "capacity to give" based on a whole slew of semi-public financial information like real estate holdings, trusts, etc.
I do research on any company that I interview with. Especially in this market, it is important to understand as much about the company and their industry as possible. With LinkedIn you can even learn about the individuals who might be on your team or even be your boss. I take my employment seriously, and just as interviews will have questions for me, I will have questions for them. Mostly I focus on budgets, revenues, five year plans and things like that. If the company cannot demonstrate that they are A) in a good position and B) thinking long term, I do not have any interest in working there.
Just the other day I was approached by a recruiter looking to fill a sysadmin position that pays 115k a year. Sysadmin, 115k a year. Sounds good. Too bad they are in the digital projector business, and their many clients are movie theaters and the government. With the economy contracting, fewer people are going to movies. With the budget messes in Washington DC, there are going to be fewer and fewer large contracts for non-critical things like digital projectors. I took a pass on that position.
Diskeeper defrags on the fly.
Of course they would still have to prove that this actually was the reason for the delay.
Enter electronic discovery. Expect HP to be giving up all of their emails involving any communication with the board for at least the last fiscal year.
I think they made that comment before they lost their sweet heart deal with Starz.
The point I was trying to make and that I failed to convey was that at the time, Google was new. Google has (and arguably still has) the best search engine on the internet. "Everyone" was excited about Google and so Gmail had an air of exclusivity about it when it came out. There is nothing special or exclusive about G+. It is "just another Facebook" in the eyes of their target audience.
I remember reading a couple of stories about the first shares of stock that were floated by Goldman Sachs. The SEC prevented Goldman from selling the shares in the United States, so GS had to go to Asia to get rid of them. It was speculated that the shares were so over valued that the SEC was protecting American investors. Is that still the case? Can the shares even be offered in the US?
That is the same experience I had. There was a faint interest in G+ at first, but once everyone realized that there were not very many people using it and that everyone was "still on Facebook", the impetus to use G+ dwindled.
Like so much out of Google, they blew it again. "Limited betas" and "exclusivity" works great when you have something that nobody else does. Gmail was a great example of that. Free webmail was a fairly new phenomena and webmail with a real amount of storage was unheard of. In that case, the limited release and needing an invite from your friends worked wonders. People wanted it.
Nobody really wants G+. Everyone who wants a social network with their friends and family already has one. It is called Facebook.
Google should have kept the lid on their social network, refined it internally, then launched it to EVERYONE when it was ready. Instead they offered up some half-assed launch, a few people checked it out, and now nobody cares.