One of the requirements of PCI compliance with the credit card companies is that you don't use default passwords in any equipment tied to the card transaction.

Which makes this even more interesting. Based on the password and the fact that a paperclip is required I know the specific vendor and equipment to which the article refers, despite the authors going to great lengths to omit that information. The vendor is a big one and their equipment is involved in millions of electronic payments made every day. You could even say they are "the way to pay." In fact, they are involved in PCI certification for most production deployments involving their hardware: most, but not all, because certain deployments using default configurations do not need additional certification, just a quick verification that IP addresses and the like are properly configured.

I understand the need for a default password, but it really should be changed. That being said, the encryption keys are not accessible using that password. They are stored in a hardware module that self-destructs if you tamper with it. They can only be set in one of two secure locations both controlled by the vendor: if you attempt to use any other means to mess with the keys, bye-bye memory card that stores them. This is bad, but not as bad as it sounds at first.

Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that ... well, fast forward two years and you're just sitting there hitting that button all day long. "The quarter solution" or whatever you want to call it is still resulting in deaths and, as we can see here, we're not 100% sure whose deaths that button is causing. Even if we study the targets really really hard.

No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.

Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.

News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.

Capital Punishment for anyone breaking any law or even for minor infractions. That will solve the problem real quick, or we'll run out of people to punish, or most likely we'll be overthrown by a revolt and executed.

Before the patent expires, the patent holder tends to do a smear campaign to inject FUD in further use of the pharmaceutical and discourages doctors from prescribing it. When the replacement medication is available it quickly supplants the old medication, even if it has more dangerous side-effects.

Medication is not a free market because the end-users are not the ones to make the decisions on which medication to purchase. It's a a decision made by doctors, who are often heavily influenced by sophisticated marketing campaigns from drug companies.

I'm fine letting the free market determine what I should pay for TVs, pajamas, corn, etc. Because I directly make the decision on what I buy. (note: corn is not sold on a free market)

So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:

So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide ... that she never had?

No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies ... anybody who accepts it as the sole cure for their ailment is putting their health in the hands of such charlatans and quacks.

CEOs like to use special language because they are all sociopaths and have trouble with the truth.

States occasionally rewrite their constitutions. But as I understand it for the US Constitution to be rewritten we would have to get unanimous approval of every state legislature, and that Congress alone does not have the authority to do this. (anyone, is this true?)

I don't agree that a traffic citation is reasonable cause to search for drugs. Maybe if there is reckless driving and the driver appears intoxicated, but that is already a felony. I would much rather that it took a related felony before drug searches are permitted.

If we all mostly agree to something then we can legislate it to enforce that agreement. Isn't that what democracy is about? Resolving issues when unanimous agreement is not possible.

You bring up a good point. There are people who legitimately need it as medication.

The price of pharmaceuticals is not really well correlated by supply and demand. It's priced based on how much money the drug company wants to make that quarter. (I wish I were being facetious)

At my US job I officially have 0 sick days and 0 PTO. I am paid a salary whether I work or not. I can arrange to not show up to work and continue to get the same salary. But there is no written standard for how much I can take, and I do not accrue any PTO that I can collect as a check when I leave.

This sort of weirdo policy is starting to become popular in the tech industry, especially in Silicon Valley. And it makes comparing job benefits almost impossible.

In the industry I work in, I am not permitted to form or join a union, as my job is considered to be a professional occupation and not protected by the state labor laws. (USA)

I don't see this changing in the US any time soon. (soon being before I retire)

Actually I've had Seagate, WD (I wrote an article about a WD drive about ten years ago, it will be in Random Scribblings), Maxtor, and others, and I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

Then let's all agree not to take it. As we really only care about the relative performance when compared against your peers. If all your peers did it, you'd be in the same place you are now.

Might be better is if we all worked less, got paid less and hired a few more people. I realize some people want to work 50 hours a week (or more), but I don't and it's been hard to not do that and stay in my industry.

It's tough to arrest someone carrying a firearm when no one else is allowed to carry one.

It's time we repeal the Fourth Amendment. Police need to be able to find all the criminals using any means necessary. Won't someone please think of the children!!

(And if you post arguments against this proposal, I'll push to repeal the First Amendment as well)