While I agree this is possible, I will also submit that it's only a partial truth because not all banks and credit cards are the same. Many credit card companies will provide negative scoring for paying off a debt completely every month. I have had 2 credit cards cancelled for exactly that reason (years apart mind you, not simultaneous). The reason I got the cards was for the same reason you claimed worked, to build a score by making small purchases and paying it off each month. Except that credit card companies can cancel your cards for any reason, and in my case did after a few months of purchasing small goods and paying off the balance every month.
American Express has worked this way for as long as they have been in business, but you pay an annual fee to have the card so it's still not "free" and you are not being paid to have the card.
As the old saying goes, if something appears too good to be true it probably is. That said, I'd be interested in looking at your actual monthly statements to see how much you actually pay for credit card use. Call me cynical, but nobody rides for free. Perhaps if your "company" is contributing more, you would appear to pay less, etc...
I will grant you that big banks are worse than credit unions, and perhaps your credit cards are both through your credit union. Doubtful that you would get frequent flier miles that way, but surely possible.
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
A SWAT team per city / county, a few of which might have a light armored vehicle, is an "occupation" army?
You don't suppose you might be overstating things a bit, do you??
Were you in Boston on April 15-20th, 2013? Occupation army isn't too far off.
The DOJ did not fail to convict Microsoft of being an illegal monopoly, they failed to _PUNISH_ them after they were found guilty. Microsoft paid lobbyists to convince congress that breaking them apart (as was done with AT&T) would cause further economic collapse. Yeah yeah, so much for the separation of powers...
It was not just the DOJ that failed to punish MS. Several states had similar successful trials where MS was found guilty, and the payout from MS was "free MS products for Education and Government" for N years ( in some cases 5 years ). I wrote numerous articles and papers back then explaining how this was not a punishment, but obviously a method of further entrenching their monopoly.
Jackson and Sharpton both have livelihoods that depend on race issues. Both are known for race baiting, and have made careers doing just that. This is why even when no racial issues exist, they fabricate information to make them exist. These are not the only two that manipulate discrimination issues for cash. We saw recently that the NAACP will give bigots a lifetime achievement award, if the bigot gives enough money to the NAACP.
That statement should not imply that real issues of discrimination do not exist, but rather that real issues of discrimination are diminished because of these types of people.
It's not a shakedown for money, because that would only let you cash a check once. He wants constant racial issues, and instigates them when ever possible.
You do realize that it takes money to sue someone correct? Well, technically you could file yourself but you will quickly lose because a laymen is not going to understand the required procedures even assuming they could figure out the correct paperwork to file to get the case started.
Very few lawyers work pro bono. If any risk at all existed in the case (including to their reputation) lawyers can and often do refuse cases.
No, it's not practical for a homeless person to sue anyone. In a criminal case a lawyer must be provided if the person can not afford one, but that is not true with civil cases.
Why the summary munged Alexander's laughable salary request and a lawsuit by a journalist is a bit baffling.
First issue, the lawsuit. The NSA refused to provide under Federal Law. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that this agency is ignoring (or at least attempting to ignore) Federal Law. The right answer is to disband the NSA and hand SIGINT over to the Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely. While we are disbanding things, we should also revamp the CIA, FBI, DHS, and TSA removing most of their powers and executives that also ignore the law.
Second issue is that Alexander thinks he's brilliant enough to make a million a month telling people what most IT Security professionals can do for a much better rate. I'd do better than he does at securing a company, and I'll do it for much less. In fact I can think of a few dozen people I'd recommend for much less, and for a million a month I'd have a full staff doing audits _and_ consulting. You don't need to be a former General to be intelligent about security, you need knowledge.
In other words, if Alexander can get a million a month for consulting it sure as hell is not for security. It would be for cronyism.
Try being working or lower middle class and doing the same thing. When you can only save a few hundred a month for a house due to rent costing over 1.5 times a typical mortgage payment
I moved out of poverty and into the upper middle class over time. There is no silver spoon or handouts for the overwhelming majority of people that move out of poverty to a better income.
Being debt free gives me more cash than a person that has lots of debt. Their money goes to interest payments, mine stays in the bank. It's not being "rich", it's being debt free.
Not a fan of banks, but you are welcome to start your own bank.
You think a regulator would approve you if you didn't play the game? Come now, you know better.
There is nothing wrong with using credit and loans as long as they are used responsibly.
Funny that you believe you should have to pay a bank money, just for the "privilege" of spending money. You already earned your pay, but you think you should pay a bank so that you can spend it? This is exactly what I was referring to about people not understanding the scam.
1. A credit history. That's not necessarily debt, it is a history of handling small debts that you've paid off.
This is what I said. If you pay your phone bill every month, you don't get extra points. If you pay your phone bill with a credit card, you will get extra points IF and only IF you pay just the minimum payment (mostly interest to prolong your debt). If you pay it off in full, you may receive negative points. If you don't pay your bill on time you can be reported for negative points as well. Doing the right thing and paying on time the full amount to the company will not help your credit.
Your item 2 has a hell of a lot to do with item 1. If people want you indebted longer, they will target you for additional debt. Banks can somehow take back any property you gained, get insurance money for losses, and receive handouts from the Government for doing just that.
Nobody can force you to go into debt.
True. At the same time if a bank forces you to have a particular credit score to get a loan (as most do) the only way to get the credit score is to live in constant debt paying interest payments. Go ahead and try buying a house with a low credit score. Even if you don't need to be in debt people use credit cards for this exact reason. Hence, why I claim it's a scam.
The whole point of a "credit score" is horribly broken. In order to get approved for debt, you must have debt. If you have money in the bank and no monthly debt payments you have a reduced score. It's a SCAM! A scheme to make sure that you are constantly in debt, and yet it's perfectly legal. Living in debt constantly costs you money, and for what? So that you can have more debt? Wow!
The fact that people don't get this, or simply don't care, is very telling.
Personally I have almost no debt, just my car payment. I don't have a lot of debt so have a laughably low credit score. If I don't have cash I can wait to buy something. Actually since I manage my personal finances very well purchasing something I want is never an issue.
And I already stated in my first reply that IMHO your success has little to do with the training and a lot to do with the continuous follow-ups you do. Also with an environment that is not business-focussed.
This does not match what you state later, which is in essence claims that all 3,000 people in your company need in depth knowledge of your security policy. That is, plainly, nonsense.
Corporate "Security Awareness Training" has to address the needs of _many_, and not everyone needs that level of detail. In fact very few do, and a small percentage could even understand them. Which could explain your repeated claims of bad experiences.
Jane and John, the new accountants, need to know what Phishing is, not what your encryption policy for tape back up is. You previously complained that for you it was redundant so "stupid" (your words). Stop moving the goal post.
What I mean is that we replace actual security with trainings and think it's a solution.
Security awareness training is not a replacement for security. If a Company believes it does, this matches what I stated repeatedly about a broken culture. Not a Security or Training deficiency.
Sure I have my own view and experiences and my attitude is the result of what I've seen and what I think about it. Also the result of knowing a lot of people in the IT consulting business privately, where they tell you what they really think.
I know plenty that underscore how bad corporate cultures are and can be. Any Corporate level trainer will tell you the same thing. You have to train everyone in the basics. After they have a grasp of basics, reminders and nudges from audits work. A reminder about phishing attacks will be ignored by people that don't know what phishing is or how it works. Reminders to follow the password policy will be ignored by people that don't know the policy.
Finally, as stated previously, there are plenty of people that contribute to poor culture. The guys that talk smack about the training because they know it all are a huge issue. You have to build a culture of security if you want to be secure. That will never happen with a crew of sexual intellects (F'king know it all's) discouraging knowledge sharing and personal growth.
You should really qualify "The Press" in these types of statements. The Press could be ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and many more who today claimed an 82 year old man shot a pregnant woman as a headline, when the person was both not pregnant and also committing armed robbery for at least the 2nd time against the same 82 year old man who was beaten as well as robbed. The Press could be the same crew that edited audio to make it look like a guy on neighborhood watch simply claimed to the Police that he was following a Black guy where the full audio shows he is responding to a 9/11 operator asking what race he believes the suspect was. The same media claimed that that guy was White when he's Hispanic, and portrayed the victim in a 7 year old picture to make it appear like the guy shot a little kid instead of a 6'1" nearly legal adult. All to sway public opinion (that one was for numerous purposes). The same media that interrupted a Congresswoman discussing the NSA for "breaking news" that Justin Beiber was arrested, and ensured that a twerk skank received more air time than dialogue about numerous political issues.
The media we normally see and hear IS on the same team as the government, make no mistake.
As such, I continuously wonder if there were just as many secrets before, but it's just faster to find out about their existence nowadays
To some extent I agree that this, but up until 20 years ago we had some real journalism. Nation wide every station lost their "investigative reporters" within the same couple years, and that was the end of any real journalism with any of the 3 letter media outlets.
With rare exceptions today, the only thing that get air time is propaganda.