Animals do not pray, they are prey.
7611 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Depending on the sophistication of the breach, it might also allow them to monitor the number and types of inquiries legitimate companies are making. That could be used to improve your trading positions in the securities markets with less risk of exposure than direct fraud.
Either way, despite my other humorous post, this is cause for concern for all of us.
About 10 years ago when I was handling the finances for a non-profit we were offered a Black card from Amex. We didn't apply for it because we figured $1000/year charge was a bit steep for our little organization. But I did read everything that came with it. If I had that kind of money to burn, I would certainly have one.
Paris, because she actually has that kind of money.
Strictly speaking yes. But Amex does offer cards that are credit cards (Amex Blue). Not sure I'd depend on that distinction for this case.
But frankly when I looked at taking them for a group where I volunteered, the sole reason to prefer Mastercard and Visa was the ease of setting up both accounts and the manner in which fees were charged. MC/Visa only charged if the transaction went through. Amex (and Discover at the time IIRC) both charged per transaction regardless of whether the transaction was approved.
Any time you accept a charge card, you accept the risk that you won't get your money. The card could be stolen, or the user can dispute the charges. That's the protective side for the user of the charge card. The user can then refute the dispute claim by providing documents which prove the authorized user used the card to pay the bill.
If the club has filed charges, Oracle and the card user are most likely both claiming the card was stolen and they are therefore not liable for the charges. American Express is preferred by some card holders because they come down hard on merchants who don't abide by the terms of the card. I knew someone (may he rest in peace) who once complained to Amex because the hotel at which he was staying wouldn't accept his card even though they clearly had the logo on their door. While he was at the hotel, their agreement with Amex was terminated and someone from Amex showed up with a razor blade to remove the sticker from the door.
My thoughts as well. If it was simply a matter of an employee put dodgy expenses on the card, the company pays the bill, fires the employee, docks the employees severance pay, and if necessary files suite against the employee.
So I'm thinking the card was reported stolen, and the charges disputed. The club filed suite because they think the employee holding the card is trying to defraud them. I don't have a clue as to whether the card was actually stolen or is an employee trying to duck the fees.
You can't claim fairness when you were the one who committed the foul.
There were two iPhones. Samsung probably makes sense for the customized Android. A Nexus should have been the other phone. Why? Because none of the phone suppliers mess with the Apple design. So no matter what you buy, you get their design. A fair comparison therefore requires you look at Google's intended design as well.
Besides, it's easy to rationalize just about anything after you've picked the best target for your slanted study.
I particularly like the called out quote on this count:
"Take any recent top-of-the-line smartphone, and you are likely to get a well-designed, fast, pleasant to use bit of hardware: fluid operation, responsive interaction, fast graphics,"
For work I've configured a number of Blackberrys and a number of iPhones. For personal use I once bought an HTC from Sprint. On both the Blackberry and iPhones that supported touchscreens, I had a bitch of a time typing. The HTC 3000 was perfectly fine. I suspect that has a bit more to do with hardware than software, probably sensor density on the touchscreen. I no longer have the HTC because I just didn't use the phone enough to justify the exorbitant cost. But if I were looking for a smartphone, I'd be looking for something like the HTC.
"But it was the humans who torched the sky."
I'm sure the system would work. But this is one instance where I'd like a good bit more study before we change anything. I have a gut feeling those belts do more to protect our environment than we know. I'd be more comfortable with a system that made a temporary hole that could close again after we were finished with it.
It doesn't matter if he's selling it for $20, $50 or $250 dollars. The point is, he probably doesn't know what kind of phone it is before he mugs you. He just wants the phone to sell to a fence. The fence is the one who disposes of it. Maybe he know the technical details, maybe he doesn't and sell it to a guy who does. Maybe the guy hacks it, maybe he turns it into parts to resell. Either way you're still out an overpriced iPhone. To me this smells of the same Kabuki theater in which the TSA is engaged.
That's not his theory. That's the basics of all non-utopianist economic theory. Capitalism is all about maximizing the output of scarce economic resources. The political troglodytes just don't like the allocations that result from it.
And you should be careful. People who are looking for "the final solution" tend to miss that things have already gone sideways.
The most important experiment in this utopianist fantasy thinking was conducted about 385 years ago by a group of Englishmen. It has been assiduously ignored by commies and other parasites ever since. It proved that all redistributionist fantasies are ultimately doomed to failure because they do not account for rudimentary human behavior. When the masses can take without producing they do so to the point of threatening the destruction of the societal group engaged in the redistribution. You might have heard of it, but not thought it through. It was called the Massachusetts Bay Company and it founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Given that they were Puritans they really should have known better. The Bible clearly lays out that part of the consequence of original sin is that man must work by the sweat of his brow for those transgressions.
Actually, most of this stuff on finances is all pre-9/11. In theory it was put in place to locate money laundering associated with drug smuggling, prostitution, illegal gambling and other activities of organized crime. With the tools mostly already in place it was easy to extend them to National Security after 9/11. Even now I could see police looking to be able to track the money transfers to mules who empty bank accounts as a result of identity fraud.
No hacking is required, and your government likely agreed to it either through direct treaty, bi-lateral agreements, or secret memorandum of understanding.
NSA issues one of their special warrants under the Patriot Act, the banks hand over the data. Whether on tape, disk, or via a direct feed. NSA filters the data stream for what they want and file it for further research as needed in the future. Probably no humans involved in looking at even the filter stream except for quality control purposes. Because the simple fact of the matter is that once you get much past 100, no human reads that much data randomly looking for connections.
In fact it hints at the more probable truth: the slurping is going through channels that have been legislatively approved, requested by the Executive branch, and approved by the Judiciary. Both Visa's statement and the low number of stored records given the daily volume point in this direction.
You may think the laws should say otherwise, that the executive branch should be more circumspect, and/or that judges should be more protective of Constitutionally protected natural rights; but it looks to me like all of the processes have been followed and the slurping is not surreptitious. Which might make it even more outrageous, but is quite something different than the supernatural boogieman slurping everybody's data that Snowden et. al. are trying to paint them as.
You haven't been paying attention Dan. The Chocolate Factory re-wrote the rules for versioning. Every time you update you now do a full number increment.
If we were following your rules we'd still be back at about version 6. The last update under the old rules was 3 point something. They inexplicably jumped to 6 for the transition and it's been going up a full increment about once a month since then.
Icon because like you, I remember when the numbers were somewhat meaningful.
It's got less to do with the bugs that the other testing surrounding the installation of various systems. IIRC the problems you expect to encounter in space before the first experiment are well understood and mitigated. What turns out to be the most difficult issue is usually overlooked: vibrational issues from the stress of launch. Also older, higher voltage systems provide more stability once you are beyond the protection of the Van Allen belts.
Also, I'd bet at least one of those companies has insisted that Adobe put the relevant source code in escrow so that if Adobe goes bankrupt their rights continue and they are then entitled to use the source code to continue their product development. I mean hell, if HP put those conditions on the company I worked for back in the late 1980s when we co-developed a product, I can't see any way the legal hounds would sign a contract without it today.
The creative types typically don't care about costs except MAYBE as it affects their paychecks.
One of the reasons Adobe software in general has been so hideously overpriced is the cater to these types who once upon a time were willing to pay thousands for a single typeface on their typesetting machines. Given that each font family has several typefaces and any creative types were going to demand hundreds of font families, we're talking millions. Granted for most punters these days I'm talking prehistoric times, but that's where it came from.
And for once in his life Kerry would be correct. Since the foundation of the US starts with our Declaration outlining our grievances in the then ongoing war with Britain, by definition the British can't be the first. And since France were US allies in that war they are truly the first. But the British are likely to always be the closest allies.
Direct works if all you are selling is hardware, preferably of a specific type. The problem with that is you become a monoculture. And while a monoculture can get big as Dell 1.0 proved, if something changes the environment for the monoculture, you're toast. And something ALWAYS changes the environment for the monoculture.
Once you get into the sort of integrated systems Dell 3.0 is looking to sell, you need channel partners. Your channel partner knows the clients, knows what they need, and establishes the one-on-one not-an-account-number-only relationship you need for the long haul. Yes, it might be more profitable if the sales organization grew that way organically and was all under the same house. It would also be more profitable if I could sell unicorn farts to power your car with no CO2 emissions for a whole year. And those two resource live right next to each other. Back here in Walgreen land you need a channel partner for that kind of integration. Dell will still be able to sell direct to small outfits that don't need that level of integration, or who have somehow landed a genius team to run their IT Support. But the channel were never going to pick them up anyway, so they aren't irritated by that the way they would be if Dell went after their customer list.
What I think you are going to see is a couple of quarters, possibly years, of Dell running losses or at least even more paper-thin margins than they have in the past while they re-org the company. That's the kind of thing you can't be on the exchange and do. You take a 1 to 3 year hit on the profits so you can more quickly get to your full channel goal, then run the next 10 years in a profitability range that makes taking the hit worth it. Gutsy and risky. Wall Street likes the first, but is even more averse to the second than vampires are to garlic and mirrors.
It's a sweet deal for Google. A little too sweet for my taste. I think they should be paying full retail for the fuel. I'd let the have the write-off on the rent.
That being said, the other part of the question should be: will we get more out of the government making them pay that than it cost for Grassley to investigate it? Much as I think we need some sunlight on these kinds of deals, I'm not sure those numbers balance out.
I wouldn't say "well", but he at least had a thesis I was willing to doubtfully consider.
It seems like old companies will try to move to a combination of software and hardware that lock in the customer. The problem is, once the customer is set free, he rarely wants to return to his cell.
Being cheap and "good enough" built MS's real competitive advantage: Ubiquity. If you send somebody a Word/Excel/PowerPoint document, they can open it and read it. Most of them because they are running Windows with Office installed, some because the niche players were forced to implement the MS "standards" for their programs. The irony is, that ubiquity now makes progress more difficult for them. They have to move the whole base. And when the base doesn't want to move, it doesn't.
Yes, but not all of the subsequent close calls were. And the relevant factor on 9/11 is that they were all cross-country flights with the planes taken over on take off. The point being to have the most fuel available for destruction when it crashed. Which mean international flights are other prime targets.
Now, having said all of that, I think 9/11 was pretty much a one trick pony. Up until 9/11 we were all told and trained to obey the hijackers and chances were good we'd all come out alive. And being good little monkeys we all played along. As of 9/11 we now all know those rules don't apply anymore. Which means from hear on out, when you stand up to announce the hijacking the immediate response is going to be a plane full of pissed off people intent on taking you down no matter what. And that is what pisses me off the most about the Kabuki theater of airport security.
Right there is where you run afoul of the questions and regs at check-in. One of the questions they ask is whether or not you packed your bag and whether or not it has been under your control since you packed it. In this case the truthful answer is 'No' even though he thought it was. Yes, it is a hyper-legal point; but it's what they'll nail you on if you fight them. No, I don't like it any more than the rest of you do. I'd rather we did away with the theater show and had real security.
I expect that's true on the consumer side. Business, probably not so much.
Businesses try to cut costs, but they understand their vendors need to make a profit too. The overall relationship is critical to the business culture, and a long term, stable relationship with quality merchandise at low but not cut-rate prices will usually be better for both parties in the long run.
Corel Draw was a great product. I preferred it to the hideous Adobe Illustrator. And they did OK with Ventura Publisher for a while. It was my go to product for document production back before MS homogenized the hell out of everything. Ventura only went to shit when they decided to ape Adobe, which was not what I wanted. Of course, trying to drain me of too much money to frequently didn't help either.
What all the chicken little posters on this thread are ignoring is that the NSA, like most government agencies, has a fragmented personality. They aren't all engaged in spying on people. Some significant portion of them are engaged in protecting government assets from being spied on. Their mission is to put out the most secure code possible. And they pursue that as aggressively as the spies pursue theirs.
Please engage your brain before writing this kind of nonsense.
Businesses are engaged in the process of making money. They have no interest in deploying software for which they have no need. If Java is deployed, there's a pretty good chance they need it. If the browser helper is installed, there's an even better chance they need that too. No, it's not going to be for a public facing website. It's going to be one of their intranet sites, which probably also generates one of those invalid certificate errors* every time you visit it as well.
Erik posted a good start on reasons why businesses behave this way.
*Yes it's that time of year for me to be annoyed about this again. Because once again, the very first thing I had to do before taking the mandatory IT Security Awareness course was ignore one of those errors.
Yes. I noticed the original article was very careful to say 'circumvented or broken' (or words to that effect). And all the articles since then have, umm, edited for shortness. Yeah, that the ticket! Edited for shortness, not edited to enflame and/or mislead.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019