Here's my list of potential buyers, in rough order of preference:
CmdrTaco
Crowd-funded non-profit entity
Some unheard of benign tech group
Another tech news company
Some unheard of business acquisition group
NewsCorp
Microsoft Corporation
Unfortunately that same list is much less amusing when sorted on probability.
Powerline and pipeline patrol? Aerial photography?
Seems like those are applications that scream, "CHEAPER TO DO WITH DRONES!" to me.
I would mostly agree with parent. Soylent is fine execpt the community isnt big enough so the comments are barely there or worth reading, the name is kind of bad and the stories are routinely just old enough to be yesterdays news on Slashdot or Hacker news.
Their Twitter feed, which is where I get my news feeds, also puts these really annoying lame "from the deptâ attempts at humor in the tweets instead of just the title of the story and the link:
Razer Acquires Ouya Software Assets, Ditches Hardware from the kicked-down dept
They will even thorten the title to make room for the utterly stupid âoefrom theâ.
The best solution to replace Slashdot would probably be if Hacker news grafted the classic Slashdot look, commenting and moderation system on to their generally good stories and great community.
There is a high probably no Sunday talk show would have let him speak once they found out what he was going to say. They are all owned by giant media conglomerates you know. They wouldnt risk the wrath of the Federal government. Pretty sure Snowden went to Greenwald because he was one of the few journalists with the balls to do the story. The Guardian was hammered by the UK government for running it.
Remember when the CEO of Qwest defied the NSA plan to tap all data and phones lines after 9/11. The Federal government pulled all their contracts from Qwest, hammered their stock and then put him in prison for a phony securities rap. Qwest was a rare corporate hero among telecoms, long since swallowed up by CenturyLink who are just as bad as all the rest.
Worth adding is that the answers to someone's "security" questions often are easily obtained with just a small bit of social engineering.
Yep. Even easier if the information ("correct" answers) are available via Google.
But also, since you're already using unique passwords
Their thinking seems to be:
1. So, one username / password isn't enough.
2. A second password should be enough, but it will use the same username as in #1.
3. And that second password should be SUGGESTED to be based upon something that can be researched / socially engineered / tricked out of the person.
4. And entered using the same channel as #1.
Okay, if you cannot get two factor authentication then at least use a different email address for each bank AND ONLY FOR THAT BANK. Email addresses are free. And always use completely unique passwords. Not bankname1 and bankname2.
The same for the "security" questions. Always completely unique.
If you have to write them down, do so. Just keep the paper in a secure location. It's far less likely that someone will break into your house to look for passwords than it is that someone will crack your computer.
Robin Miller: One thing that I think my wife and I are doing right: we don't have a bank anymore, we have a credit union, a local credit union and they do use secondary authorization on everything, you have to not just know the account number and the password, but you also need to know the answers to fairly obscure questions about our past, what year teacher was your favorite in what grade, things like that. Does that help?
NO!!! It does NOT!!!
1. It does not because that information can be collected at other sites controlled by crackers. So unless you enter incorrect information (which is, in effect just another password) then it is useless.
2. It is still on your computer. So if your computer is cracked then the crackers get your username / password / favourite-dog-food / whatever.
3. Find a bank / credit union that uses real two factor authentication.
Read carefully and you'll notice the government said he'd even have to accept the consequences of speaking out and engaging in constructive protest: they decree you can dissent against their rule, and that's well and good, as long as they can punish you for your dissent--which is precisely the situation in North Korea, where you may speak out against Kim Jong-Un, and, importantly, accept the consequences of speaking out against him.
Exactly.
If the end result of civil disobedience is the exact same in the USofA as in North Korea
The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.
And THAT is a very big problem.
Gamergate was ignored because gamergate is not news.
My problem with it is that even if the initial event happened EXACTLY AS CLAIMED then it is still nothing.
The "story" became the reactions to that nothing event.
And then the reactions to those reactions to that nothing event.
And now we have a post mod'ed +5 Insightful for claiming that Gamergate wasn't covered.
Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning