Because rent control only sounds like a good idea until you realize that it is fully able to keep the price of rent below that of mortgage + tax. When landlords cannot collect sufficient rent to pay property taxes or mortgages, you can image what happens next.
Hmmm - prison = food, clothing, shelter, in some cases a good gym membership and now your own tablet with internet and skype and probably easy access to porn.
What's the deterrent to crime then?
First, you need to give up your freedom. Be denied all contact with all other humans, and be cut off from the world. You'd need to accept spending years like that. For years, you will not see a sunrise, or a rolling ocean. For years, you cannot join a motorcycle club. For years, even the possibility of a pleasant walk will elude you. You'll miss the spring flowers, the greens of summer, and the spectacle of autumn - for years. And for years, you will not feel wind in your hair or the sun on your face.
If you're willing to give up all that in exchange for a tablet, a treadmill, and three square a day, well sir, kudos to you. I wouldn't.
For the slow of mind - prison, in a modern society, is not meant to be a deterrent - that's why we call it corrections. Modern civil societies have rehabilitative prisons, not punitive prisons. (Almost) everyone in prison is getting out eventually. You'd better plan for that.
I can't believe shit like this gets modded up. People like you - the ones who blame the user - give people like me a bad name.
They put it on iCloud - as far as they know, THAT IS A FUCKING BACKUP. They have independently set up an iCloud backup, as far as they are aware. Calling them stupid does nothing to address the cause, which in your example, is a shitty user interface provided by Apple that did not adequately inform the user of the effects of the action in question.
No, they do not "deserve" this. They made a simple mistake. We all do. Believing an iCloud copy is a reliable backup is a perfectly reasonable assumption to a layperson. They have a copy on their iPhone, and a backup copy in an iCloud account. Or conversely, they have a copy in an iCloud account, and a backup stored on their iPhone - THEIR OWN FUCKING MEDIA.
You seem to not understand that not everyone should be expected to maintain the level of knowledge you have on this matter. They don't understand it - so they place their trust in Apple - who, by all accounts, should know a hell of a lot more about this matter than they do.
Yes, exactly. And passwords are no different. Any credentials stored with a third party are at a risk level determined by the security measures in place there. Passwords are dependent on proper hashing and salting, and the current level of computational power available to crack them (among other things), and fingerprint records are only as secure as current technological sophistication will permit. We've always needed to have some level of trust in authentication providers, and I don't think biometric records are any different in that regard.
The difference, of course, is that you can't change your fingerprint, and you're dependent on the advancing state of technology. Still though, they are a useful additional factor when employed with full knowledge of their weaknesses.
Other biometric solutions, such as fingerprints, iris scans, and facial features, become eternally useless once compromised.
No. They do not. This is a rather common misconception. Granted, you can never change these things - which is an inherent weakness, but they do not become "eternally useless". I may have your fingerprint - but I can not fool every fingerprint reader on Earth. Better fingerprint readers are invented - each successive generation being harder to fool. Iris scans and facial recognition are much the same. You may be able to fool the scanners of today, but not necessarily the scanners of tomorrow. You may be able to fool some scanners, but not all scanners.
I can place a security guard at the scanner - thus ensuring that a rubber finger (or a gummy bear), or a picture of your face, is not being used, much like an extremely cheap lock can be very effective if someone can monitor it to ensure it is not picked. They do not become eternally useless. They are still, and always will be, an additional measure, not to be used in isolation.
The highest stress levels, it should be noted, are reserved for those who constantly check their work e-mail on days off. Their average stress level is 6.0. So those of you who think it's somehow pleasant to work from home on a Saturday afternoon, you're actually fooling yourself.
That's on a scale of 1 to 10, and the average across America is 4.4 for those who didn't RTFA. (Extremely sloppy summarizing. Way to go, msmash!)
And besides, this is only a correlation - the article does not identify whether constant email checking causes stress, or if people who are already stresses are more likely to check emails. It further goes on to state:
About 42 percent of constant checkers specifically point to political and cultural discussions as causing stress. And the impacts play out in real life—35 percent of constant checkers say they are less likely to spend time with family and friends because of social media.
Suggesting (at least to me) that constant email checking and high stress levels simply have a common precursor, not that one causes the other.
A month later, André attempted to fly to New Orleans again. This time, he brought what he thought was ample proof that he was not a sex worker: letters from his employer, pay stubs, bank statements, a lease agreement and phone contracts to prove he intended to return to Canada.
When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn’t even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system. But André had wiped his phone of sex apps, browser history and messages, thinking that would dispel any suggestion he was looking for sex work. Instead, the border officers took that as suspicious.
All the "travel mode" protections we can think of will be useless, unless it also forces a password change. And we all know how often that happens.
As so many other commenters have pointed out, technology is not the problem here. The laws allowing it (or the lack of laws prohibiting it) are the problem.
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Sure they do, and I assume they know how to use it. This doesn't change the fact that the summary didn't include them because the editors were too lazy to put them there.
Assume you're right (you're not, but humour me...) - data, once the cabling is laid, costs nothing to transmit.
You happily saturate every link you have, and every upstream link as well, because of course, it's free, right?
Now I come along and offer to pay whoever gave you the link some amount of money - let's say $1000/mo. So they give me the link instead of you.
Now, if you want to use that link again, you'll have to beat my $1000/mo. So I guess it's no longer free to you - it will cost you at least as much as I am willing to pay for it.
Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.
Ah, I get it, it's not about terrorism. It's about pilfering taxpayer money. Oh, and it's about security theater as well. As if more people die of terrorism than people on the roads... oh, wait.
Not quite. This is about collecting even more information in the ever greater and ever more futile attempt to profile everyone they can, because everyone knows this is about as "voluntary" as DHS roadside screenings. They're fully aware that nobody with malicious intent will divulge anything that could deny them entry. People coming from countries that tend to generate terrorists aren't even included in this. This is only for countries for which a visa waiver exists - in other words, places America has deemed as "safe"; this is a dead giveaway that this has nothing to do with catching terrorists. This is about collecting and cataloguing information for all those individuals who don't appear on their usual radars.
Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that many people who have otherwise anonymous profiles will enter this information willingly, granting more information to agencies which might not have drawn these connections before. What they're planning to do with this data, how they're planning to use it, is anyone's guess. They sure seem to think that it will help, and they're not so stupid as to believe this will actually help catch "terrorists". This is an information grab, pure and simple, and the fucks in charge of it don't see what's wrong with collecting all of this shit from everyone.
Personally, I stopped visiting the States years ago. The border agents have done a splendid job of making me feel unwelcome there. There are plenty of other places in the world to spend my tourist dollars that don't automatically assume I am the enemy, collect my social media profiles and fingerprints, and grope me like a horny teenager every time I visit.
Second, if the iPhone is running iOS 8, remember that the iPhone 4S didn't have a Secure Enclave and Touch ID sensor. The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor that utilizes a secure boot process to make sure that it's uncompromized. It has a secret unique ID not accessible by the rest of the phone, Apple or anyone -- it's like a private key. The phone generates ephemeral keys (think public keys) to talk with the Secure Enclave. They only work with the unique ID to encrypt and decrypt the data on the coprocessor.
I fail to see how this rather technical (to the layperson) information improves the article in any way. How does extolling the security of newer devices improve this? It doesn't have whatever doodad (the secure enclave) you're talking about - so why include all this useless (imho) information in the article at all?
It's a pretty crap article really, spending over half its time talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, not to mention the subpar proofreading.
Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.
A bit off-topic, but in that case, regardless of how you feel about tax writeoffs for carry-over losses from previous years, you can't fault Trump for taking them, either. I too think the idea is stupid, but were I an international business magnate, I too would take them, or I would be at an unfair disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Because rent control only sounds like a good idea until you realize that it is fully able to keep the price of rent below that of mortgage + tax. When landlords cannot collect sufficient rent to pay property taxes or mortgages, you can image what happens next.
Mod parent up.
They should require physical access to the device, NEVER wirelessly.
Physical access to a pacemaker...
I do not think this means what you think it means...
Holy fuck EditorDavid. This is a whole new low. You've officially descended Slashdot to the depth of editing not even seen on Breitbart.
ATLANTIC. PACIFIC. Seriously, you can't even get that fucking simple a fact straight?
1) Snowden didn't "release" anything. He turned it over to Glenn Greenwald, trusting his decision on what to release.
2) Snowden was never caught.
Mt stainless steel fridge is not magnetic, you insensitive clod!
None of this bothers me. The second I get on the jet and sit down, I push foam ear plugs in, and take a nap. The baby next to me does not bother me.
*looks at parent's signature and sees why
Hmmm - prison = food, clothing, shelter, in some cases a good gym membership and now your own tablet with internet and skype and probably easy access to porn.
What's the deterrent to crime then?
First, you need to give up your freedom. Be denied all contact with all other humans, and be cut off from the world. You'd need to accept spending years like that. For years, you will not see a sunrise, or a rolling ocean. For years, you cannot join a motorcycle club. For years, even the possibility of a pleasant walk will elude you. You'll miss the spring flowers, the greens of summer, and the spectacle of autumn - for years. And for years, you will not feel wind in your hair or the sun on your face.
If you're willing to give up all that in exchange for a tablet, a treadmill, and three square a day, well sir, kudos to you. I wouldn't.
For the slow of mind - prison, in a modern society, is not meant to be a deterrent - that's why we call it corrections. Modern civil societies have rehabilitative prisons, not punitive prisons. (Almost) everyone in prison is getting out eventually. You'd better plan for that.
I can't believe shit like this gets modded up. People like you - the ones who blame the user - give people like me a bad name.
They put it on iCloud - as far as they know, THAT IS A FUCKING BACKUP. They have independently set up an iCloud backup, as far as they are aware. Calling them stupid does nothing to address the cause, which in your example, is a shitty user interface provided by Apple that did not adequately inform the user of the effects of the action in question.
No, they do not "deserve" this. They made a simple mistake. We all do. Believing an iCloud copy is a reliable backup is a perfectly reasonable assumption to a layperson. They have a copy on their iPhone, and a backup copy in an iCloud account. Or conversely, they have a copy in an iCloud account, and a backup stored on their iPhone - THEIR OWN FUCKING MEDIA.
You seem to not understand that not everyone should be expected to maintain the level of knowledge you have on this matter. They don't understand it - so they place their trust in Apple - who, by all accounts, should know a hell of a lot more about this matter than they do.
Yes, exactly. And passwords are no different. Any credentials stored with a third party are at a risk level determined by the security measures in place there. Passwords are dependent on proper hashing and salting, and the current level of computational power available to crack them (among other things), and fingerprint records are only as secure as current technological sophistication will permit. We've always needed to have some level of trust in authentication providers, and I don't think biometric records are any different in that regard.
The difference, of course, is that you can't change your fingerprint, and you're dependent on the advancing state of technology. Still though, they are a useful additional factor when employed with full knowledge of their weaknesses.
Other biometric solutions, such as fingerprints, iris scans, and facial features, become eternally useless once compromised.
No. They do not. This is a rather common misconception. Granted, you can never change these things - which is an inherent weakness, but they do not become "eternally useless". I may have your fingerprint - but I can not fool every fingerprint reader on Earth. Better fingerprint readers are invented - each successive generation being harder to fool. Iris scans and facial recognition are much the same. You may be able to fool the scanners of today, but not necessarily the scanners of tomorrow. You may be able to fool some scanners, but not all scanners.
I can place a security guard at the scanner - thus ensuring that a rubber finger (or a gummy bear), or a picture of your face, is not being used, much like an extremely cheap lock can be very effective if someone can monitor it to ensure it is not picked. They do not become eternally useless. They are still, and always will be, an additional measure, not to be used in isolation.
The highest stress levels, it should be noted, are reserved for those who constantly check their work e-mail on days off. Their average stress level is 6.0. So those of you who think it's somehow pleasant to work from home on a Saturday afternoon, you're actually fooling yourself.
That's on a scale of 1 to 10, and the average across America is 4.4 for those who didn't RTFA. (Extremely sloppy summarizing. Way to go, msmash!)
And besides, this is only a correlation - the article does not identify whether constant email checking causes stress, or if people who are already stresses are more likely to check emails. It further goes on to state:
About 42 percent of constant checkers specifically point to political and cultural discussions as causing stress. And the impacts play out in real life—35 percent of constant checkers say they are less likely to spend time with family and friends because of social media.
Suggesting (at least to me) that constant email checking and high stress levels simply have a common precursor, not that one causes the other.
The problem isn't just that the ask for passwords. The problem is also that they save them for later use.
http://www.dailyxtra.com/canad...
A month later, André attempted to fly to New Orleans again. This time, he brought what he thought was ample proof that he was not a sex worker: letters from his employer, pay stubs, bank statements, a lease agreement and phone contracts to prove he intended to return to Canada.
When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn’t even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system. But André had wiped his phone of sex apps, browser history and messages, thinking that would dispel any suggestion he was looking for sex work. Instead, the border officers took that as suspicious.
All the "travel mode" protections we can think of will be useless, unless it also forces a password change. And we all know how often that happens.
As so many other commenters have pointed out, technology is not the problem here. The laws allowing it (or the lack of laws prohibiting it) are the problem.
No.
What is laughable is that you are so smug in your total ignorance of the geologic history of this planet.
To quote another /.er (can't remember who, sorry), in geologic terms and timescales, humans don't exist.
Accidentally moderated "offtopic" instead of "insightful" - posting here to undo moderation.
Mine was a 286 without a hard drive. We called loading anything on that machine doing the "diskette disco".
We bought a 40MB hard drive some years later, as an upgrade.
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Sure they do, and I assume they know how to use it. This doesn't change the fact that the summary didn't include them because the editors were too lazy to put them there.
Damn, ran out of mod points. Where's a -1, Factually Incorrect when you need one?
(See subsequent replies...)
I tend to agree. But with a million signatures, he can't exactly ignore it, either.
Assume you're right (you're not, but humour me...) - data, once the cabling is laid, costs nothing to transmit.
You happily saturate every link you have, and every upstream link as well, because of course, it's free, right?
Now I come along and offer to pay whoever gave you the link some amount of money - let's say $1000/mo. So they give me the link instead of you.
Now, if you want to use that link again, you'll have to beat my $1000/mo. So I guess it's no longer free to you - it will cost you at least as much as I am willing to pay for it.
Idiot.
Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.
Ah, I get it, it's not about terrorism. It's about pilfering taxpayer money. Oh, and it's about security theater as well. As if more people die of terrorism than people on the roads ... oh, wait.
Not quite. This is about collecting even more information in the ever greater and ever more futile attempt to profile everyone they can, because everyone knows this is about as "voluntary" as DHS roadside screenings. They're fully aware that nobody with malicious intent will divulge anything that could deny them entry. People coming from countries that tend to generate terrorists aren't even included in this. This is only for countries for which a visa waiver exists - in other words, places America has deemed as "safe"; this is a dead giveaway that this has nothing to do with catching terrorists. This is about collecting and cataloguing information for all those individuals who don't appear on their usual radars.
Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that many people who have otherwise anonymous profiles will enter this information willingly, granting more information to agencies which might not have drawn these connections before. What they're planning to do with this data, how they're planning to use it, is anyone's guess. They sure seem to think that it will help, and they're not so stupid as to believe this will actually help catch "terrorists". This is an information grab, pure and simple, and the fucks in charge of it don't see what's wrong with collecting all of this shit from everyone.
Personally, I stopped visiting the States years ago. The border agents have done a splendid job of making me feel unwelcome there. There are plenty of other places in the world to spend my tourist dollars that don't automatically assume I am the enemy, collect my social media profiles and fingerprints, and grope me like a horny teenager every time I visit.
Second, if the iPhone is running iOS 8, remember that the iPhone 4S didn't have a Secure Enclave and Touch ID sensor. The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor that utilizes a secure boot process to make sure that it's uncompromized. It has a secret unique ID not accessible by the rest of the phone, Apple or anyone -- it's like a private key. The phone generates ephemeral keys (think public keys) to talk with the Secure Enclave. They only work with the unique ID to encrypt and decrypt the data on the coprocessor.
I fail to see how this rather technical (to the layperson) information improves the article in any way. How does extolling the security of newer devices improve this? It doesn't have whatever doodad (the secure enclave) you're talking about - so why include all this useless (imho) information in the article at all?
It's a pretty crap article really, spending over half its time talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, not to mention the subpar proofreading.
Is this the same story as Feds Unveil Rule Requiring Cars To 'Talk' To Each Other, or am I missing something?
Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.
A bit off-topic, but in that case, regardless of how you feel about tax writeoffs for carry-over losses from previous years, you can't fault Trump for taking them, either. I too think the idea is stupid, but were I an international business magnate, I too would take them, or I would be at an unfair disadvantage.
And I'm no Trump supporter.