Comment Re: Lottery (Score 1) 247
Heck, they could earn some goodwill by using all those resources to shut down the whole "Rachel from Card Services" operation.
Heck, they could earn some goodwill by using all those resources to shut down the whole "Rachel from Card Services" operation.
Yep. Government salaries are just hopelessly uncompetitive for any position requiring high-level skills. They try to paper over the problem with flag-pin symbolism, but that doesn't work now that the mystique has been replaced by stench.
it is unclear what level of name recognition she enjoys
"Bad news, Ms Fiorina. According to the latest polls, some of the voters still remember who you are...."
It boils down to two simple facts:
1. The default option is a mix of informed choice and lazy inertia.
2. The non-default options are pure informed choice.
The "informed choice" component of the former blunts the contrast, but doesn't eliminate it.
Last time I got one of these calls, it went something like this:
"I need you to open your Windows."
"Can you call me back later when it's not raining?"
*click*
Why do you think governments should step in?
Because suppression of fraud is one of the basic responsibilities of a government.
It's stable as hell, offers a guaranteed bit rate (albeit not that fast by modern standards), and is available just about anywhere in the USA. Mind you, what's a full T1: One form of it is 24(?) ISDN lines bonded together. I was on a 128k ISDN when I lived with the 'folks, as there was no DSL/Cable/Whatever. I torrented the hell out of that connection. Sure, it took some serious time to pull down a
Awww, they're so cute when they still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and politicians' honesty....
Not Eliza -- more like PARRY:
PARRY was written in 1972 by psychiatrist Kenneth Colby, then at Stanford University.[1] While ELIZA was a tongue-in-cheek simulation of a Rogerian therapist, PARRY attempted to simulate a paranoid schizophrenic.
The Feds' insistence on sweeping up all the innocent-communication "noise" is drowning out the signals. (e.g. "Hey, you might want to keep an eye on those Tsarnaev brothers -- see attached description of the stuff they were doing while they were still here in Russia.")
Indeed. This proves beyond any sane doubt that the targets are not foreigners (who for obvious reasons would ignore any "legal framework" and avoid using defective-by-design NSA-approved encryption). The targets are domestic.
If companies want to take the direction of removing themselves from the encryption picture altogether, that is their prerogative.
And yet that is precisely what the government is pissing and moaning and setting its hair on fire about. Showing that sort of contempt for citizens' private prerogatives is what caused them to forfeit our trust in the first place.
Actually, "both of the above" (foolish and malicious) fits the available evidence best. For instance, Rogers' answers at Monday's cybersecurity forum were both pathetically lame (foolish) and contemptuous of American values (malicious).
And their fruits are rotten and infested with vermin.
With your bare hands?!?