Re: Cheap flexible version
I just have an unpaid intern carry around a tablet running Skype.
Save a few dollars more and instead of a tablet, just have them carry a large picture around. Maybe a dumb cellphone (not a smart one) for verbal abuse.
12880 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Nov 2012
But at some point, they'll still have to fire of these off to verify things. Manufacturing of these weapons isn't perfect due to tolerance build-up, etc. The amount of duds in conventional weapons is bad enough... Not working for a nuke is one thing, the case ruptures and the material is scattered locally. Premature detonation due to deterioration is worse as it might set off a daisy chain of "booms" at the storage facility.
I can't speak for all locations, all insurance companies, etc. Only for what I've seen with my own eyes.
The word goes out when the auditors are coming. There'll be a mad dash in the customer service and claims areas to hide paper.. privacy screens come out from under the desks.... the day after the auditors leave, the privacy screens go back under the desk, and paper suddenly reappears magically.
In IT, they don't ever look at the servers via screens or examine the admin logs. They look at a logbook or a paper print-out of a log.
I really believe there's more break-ins coming and we'll have more discussions along this line.... I wouldn't be surprised if the break-ins are already underway and the companies just don't know it.
Hell, we have 5,000 employees and per the CIO, we have almost as many servers: mainframes, web-facing, departmental, test, etc. It's a no-win job trying to secure them all and even harder if there's any turnover in personnel. They discovered 20 servers last year that hadn't been used in 5 years or updated, but there they sat... connected to the network and happily idling. Overlooked, never used for much, and never audited because the sysadmin who set them up was made redundant before he got the paperwork done on their being launched.
Given that much of the US government has IT security rules and their systems are insecure by most standards (the Hillary Clinton email issue brought this out), their rules don't mean much.
A HIPAA audit in IT only looks at the paper trial. IT is supposed to be audited by a 3-rd party and even then, no down and dirty penetration testing is done and no one ever checks the servers for patches, etc. They only check the paperwork that things have been done.
HIPPA is more about the physical security... are papers properly shredded, does customer service as customers for their ID's, etc. and not assume the caller is "Joe Blow" without asking some questions. Some of it is the illusion of PHI security such as the line on floor in lobby areas, etc. so supposedly, no one else can hear names, account numbers, etc. which is joke when some mostly deaf pensioner is screaming at the receptionist and she/he at them.
HIPAA is much like some of the other things in government like "Homeland Security"... mostly to make everyone feel safe and secure. If they ever implement penetration testing, things might change. But with the lobby money pointed at Congress, I doubt that will ever happen.
I envision the Networks doing something <cross arms> <scream> We're not a Common carrier. We're special.<hold breath until they turn blue>
All this means is that the lawyers get rich, Congress will get lobbyists carrying brown envelopes, and customers will get screwed in the end.
Simples.. your third paragraph about costs explains it all. Telephony cables use one of (I'm thinking this right...) 3 sizes only of connector and all the commercial connectors are for that particular cable which is a standard. Even the connections are standard. The round stuff.. not so much standard anymore as connectors (especially in AppleLand) are proprietary. Plus many of the round ones have shielding.... it's tough to shield a flat cable economically.
The "right to silence" is great in theory, but from what I've seen in these parts is that the prosecution will lead the jury to believe that by not incriminating themselves (i.e.: declaring the 5th and right to silence") that the accused is hiding something and therefore guilty. I was taught by parents and military to say nothing. Even if it's a logical explanation... just keep quiet. Many of us were taught that. We have that right but it gets worked about and the accused gets burned for exercising that right. As I said.. we're all ending up the same place. <not a happy camper>
Yikes... and here I thought we had it bad in the States. Given the way things are headed, I suspect we'll all end up in the same place anyway, Constitution or no Constitution. The spooks have already found their work arounds... the simplest being "we collect your citizens metadata and hand it over and you do the same for us". Once the suspicion or probable cause is there, you're just one secret court ruling away from having all your data absorbed.
The most telling things is that we should all be incensed at this but none of us are surprised in the least.
I believe that because of who we are, the surprise was zilch. I also believe that while many (most?) of us are incensed, we know can't stop it. If at work, we know our employer's know what we do online and via email. So why not the governments.
As for being incensed... if we speak too loudly, I think we'll draw attention to ourselves and become a target for "rabble rousing" and possibly "stirring the masses"... or whatever illegality they want to use an excuse.
I read once that the best way to make a terrorist or a rebel is to put them in a place of distrust by government. It seems to be working if those groups in the Middle East are any indication based on their recruitment techniques. They don't worry me as much at the tinfoil hat types who are starting to feel the pressure and paranoia because of these actions. We've seen the Arab Spring which started with a nudge due to government excesses. At what point will we see a new "Spring" in the democratic societies?
As someone on the wrong side of the pond, help me out... There's a PM who's mouthing platitudes about spending money. Apparently he either has or hasn't a clue, not being familiar with him, I'm not sure? Is this a deep insight or just political feel-good? Then there's the two others who seem to be at odds over how the money should be spent.
I suspect that someone here in the US is watching this will try the same thing. Does seem to be a good thing or is it just the usual government solution to toss money into the pit and see what floats up?
No, didn't miss it at all. There's lots of ways to game the system as Chicago has proved in the past. If suddenly enough ballots popped up to change the election and from the same location, I think they would be noticed. Or at least I would hope they would be noticed that something was amiss.
Seems like an awful lot of trouble to change one ballot. To be meaningful, thousands would have to be changed. There's attacks for kicks and grins and attacks for greed. I think this would fall under the kicks and grins part... unless a candidate is paying off the hackers. Wouldn't bringing in the "dead vote" give a greater return?
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed, just got kind of an "meh" feeling about their reasoning given all the ways the voting system can be gamed.
And here, my wife has been complaining about "where does all this dust come from?". Now that we know, I'm sure she'll start asking why NASA, etc. can't send a giant Hoover out there to clean it up and keep off the furniture. I'm getting my coat because the next step is to vacuum the garage, in her mind.
Not only are they over-producing, it's also being under-used. The shale oil fields and the fracking bandwagon that everyone jumped on has contributed a lot to the glut. The under-used is now coming from the power generation plants and there's some drop in demand due to more efficient autos. As folks have moved to CFL and LED bulbs, the demands for power have dropped.
As some point, the oil companies will stop pumping the stuff from the ground, the stock in the tanks will drop and price per barrel will rise. There will be a shakeout which appears to have started just by the amount of layoffs going on. I don't see demand going up too much as a large base of power needs have been cut by the new light bulbs but we'll see.
Dumping of oil on the market is already starting mostly by the Sauds. I think part of the problem right now is them. Whether they wanted the US oil companies to stop drilling in the States and buy from them or to punish someone (Russia? Certain Middle-Eastern countries?) is one of those things we'll never know on why they did drop the price in the first place. If the prices go too far down, they'll be screaming and cut back their production to force the market back up.
I find it interesting that they want those two organizations to divest themselves of oil stocks at this point in time. Given the current market, oil reserves, etc. the oil companies stock prices are dropping simply because there's a glut on the market and thus the price per barrel has dropped. The smart money has moved out and is waiting for the share prices to bottom. Once those supplies (currently in tanks, etc.) have drawn down and production resumes (and the associated price climb), they'll move back into oil stocks.
I'm not talking about us mom-and-pop investors or even the pension fund investors but those that are aggressive in their portfolio management. So it's quite possible that they've already dumped a butt-load of oil company shares and this campaign is pointless. Maybe in a year or so when the glut disappears, they'll be buying back as the stock prices rise.
Er... no. It should die screaming in the night. Then every developer who had to put with that piece of crap needs to be invited to pour a glass of their favorite libation on it's grave... properly filtered through one's kidney's first. A good libation should not just be poured on the ground.
You blew it right here: Back in the day, the vast majority of people were clueless about the internet and browsers.
From where I sit, they still are clueless. If not, FB, Google et al, would not be in the positions they're in. IE wouldn't be either. The jury is still out on Chrome just do to the Google Slurp.
At some point Google will find a regulator who doesn’t roll over. And increasingly, people who want to look the gift horse of “free stuff” in the mouth.
To require a regulator who doesn't roll over will be almost impossible. Maybe there is one but their handlers (the legislatures who control the regulator) are too deep into the pockets of the big corporations and Google's pockets are very deep.
The only change that could be brought will be by the users/products of Google. I for a minute don't believe the "do not track" tick boxes work. There's just too much at stake. Even not using Google for search or anything is impossible as they "own" too many websites by placing their ads on them. "Do not track" and not using their services is a start. Adblock is another start (athough they don't block everything by rote of someone's wallet...)
It will take a massive uproar from the users/product/great unwashed for things to change. Google learned when they were an upstart how to manipulate and also how to prevent any new upstarts from moving them to the dustbin of history like AltaVista, WebCrawler, etc.
Yes, they are a problem. If Google suddenly disappeared from the universe tomorrow, would the Internet be broken? No, not really, but the floodgate would be open for another battle for the throne which would not end well for anyone except for the winner of that battle who would be the new Google.
What's the answer..? Go back to my first paragraph. Those who are elected to the various legislatures need to change as do election laws and finance laws. But they're not going to destroy their gravy train. Even term limits would be good but we've seen how than goes over as people in power want to stay in power.
For his $1 million, he could have bought a strip club and still had piles of cash left over. And then there's using his girlfriend as courier.... I've come to the conclusion that most crooks are idiots and he helps to prove it. They should add time to this guy just because....
There's power struggles still going on between countries. For the US to make this threat indicates the stakes are very high. True, Germany hasn't had terrorist attacks in the latest round. But go back not very far and they did... the Olympics... the Red Brigades...
I'm believing this was cooked up between the US and Germany as Snowden could have been allowed into Germany and then handed over to the US. As it is, he's a pawn, sitting in Russia and being used by both sides and I'll include the EU on the US side for this. When his usefulness is over, there will probably be a very serious accident in Moscow and the "Snowden problem" will go away.