Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Cap or not (Score 1) 226

If you exceed your 'cap', does service stop until you okay that you want to pay more or does it automatically start charging you?

I would rather have a real cap that stops service than the latter, incurring unknown and probably unlimited additional cost.

Also, it seems that comcast is a right shit company and if I were in the US I would just avoid buying from them altogether.

Comment: Re:Pointless accountability? (Score 1) 49

by sociocapitalist (#47763457) Attached to: UK Prisons Ministry Fined For Lack of Encryption At Prisons

The fine is nominal — one part of government fining another is rather pointless, but it does show that there's a little bit of accountability.

It seems like the two clauses of that sentence are contradicting each other. How does a "pointless" fine show any accountability at all?

Blame and hopefully a bit of shame perhaps, is better than nothing at all.

Comment: Re:I forced myself to watch it (Score 1) 296

by sociocapitalist (#47754973) Attached to: Put A Red Cross PSA In Front Of the ISIS Beheading Video

As far as I am concerned, no one should comment on it unless they've seen it. The arm chair quarterbacks who are removed from the issue and not exposed to it should shut the hell up.

The video is horrifying and Youtube and other services removing it is an injustice to humanity. People should see this and remember it. Just as people should see the horrors of the holocaust and remember. All removing the content does is ensure people are ignorant to the truth. Look how well banning Nazi memorabilia has worked out in France where they now have a HUGE uptick in the amount of anti-semitism.

Hiding the unpleasantness in life does not make it go away.

Can't let this go unanswered because your logic is flawed in that the banning of nazi materials has nothing to do with any possible uptick in antisemitism.

If there is an uptick in antisemitism it is because of what's going on in Palestine and has nothing to do with the banning of (the auction of) nazi memorabilia.

Unfortunately the word 'antisemitism' is used incorrectly to categorize people or the statements of people who are critical of Israeli policies when such criticism has nothing to do with judaism or religion at all.

Comment: Re:Not just because of liquid water (Score 1) 88

by sociocapitalist (#47746531) Attached to: Western US Drought Has Made Earth's Crust Rise

It's more due to the melting of the gigantic glaciers that once covered much of North America during the Ice Ages, like they now cover Greenland. The little glaciers sitting on tops of mountains, which are now melting due to global warming, have a much smaller effect.

Thanks but I'm thinking about the scientists checking if water level is rising in, say, California, due to global warming, well, globally. They might come to the conclusion that there is no sea level change because of the raising of California which would be hiding the actual sea level change.

Comment: Re:Wait a second! (Score 1) 314

by sociocapitalist (#47746523) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

Wait a minute. Let's follow legal reasoning.

Corporations are people, right? When a person lives and works overseas, even though the money is earned overseas, they're still supposed to file a return and pay taxes on those earnings, right? How can Microsoft claim legal personhood, and then neglect to pay taxes on their offshore earnings?

IANAL but I believe it's because each company is a separate person. The company MS USA is not the same 'person' as the company MS Bahamas.

Comment: Re:Okay... and? (Score 1) 314

by sociocapitalist (#47746507) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

because they don't pay tax on it there either.

But shouldn't that be up to the foreign countries where the money is earned? If a country doesn't want to tax earnings in its borders, that's their business. It doesn't mean the US or any other country should have a claim on it.

It hasn't been earned in those countries though, just shifted there after having been earned elsewhere (i.e. in the US or other high tax countries) by a shady loophole mechanism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Comment: Re:Okay... and? (Score 1) 314

by sociocapitalist (#47746293) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

The summary, of course, missed Microsoft's legitimate response to people's enquiries:

The company says it has "not provided deferred U.S. income taxes" because it says the earnings were generated from its "non-U.S. subsidiaries” and then "reinvested outside the U.S.”

It's almost like the editors wanted to publish a biased article or something. Scandalous.

Would be interesting to know how much of those earnings generated from non-US subsidiaries were fees paid by Microsoft America themselves, one way or another (i.e. licensing fees) to get the money offshore to start with.

Comment: Re:Not just because of liquid water (Score 1) 88

by sociocapitalist (#47746291) Attached to: Western US Drought Has Made Earth's Crust Rise

Large portions of North America and Europe are currently rising because the weight of glaciers that once pushed them down has been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

I wonder how that plays with the measurements taken with relation to sea levels rising due to the same global warming melting the glaciers in the first place.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47746223) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

Dude. You are a completely ignorant kid, with no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure. Now you are finally talking about degrees of security. If you do a little research you can start throwing around some more terms you don't understand, but you can't undo the posts that show how completely clueless you actually are. You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure. You are the reason why the world is dangerous and insecurity is rampant. Just accept that you need to learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth and the internet will be a better place for it. Also, stay out of the security field. It doesn't need more clueless bafoons.

Kid. Continuing to show your complete ignorance, as usual.

Let's go point by point to see how much substance you've actually managed to scrape off your tongue or if it's all just fungus from you not brushing.

" You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure."
Yes. I claim this. If you disagree you're free to make some substantial remarks on how exactly this is incorrect. You know, like an adult would
Point value = 0 = no substance in your remarks.

"You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure."
As I already told you in a previous mail, the cost would be a negligible percentage of the business revenue in the medical, insurance and related industries and as such it would be a cost they would not even feel. Consider the billions of USD currently being paid by banks as fines to the US. Many billions each bank. Billions are only a huge amount of money that someone who thinks small chokes on. Try and get your head around what I said last time you mentioned cost. Billions in costs are nothing compared to trillions in revenue. BNP is paying 9 billion USD. You know what that is for them? 1% (one percent in case the numbers are too complicated for you) of their yearly revenue.
Point value for your comments = 0 = no substance in your remarks. Going to have to scrape that tongue a little harder jerky.

Now why don't you pull something else out of your ass and tell me how a system or network disconnected from the Internet is going to be less secure than one that is connected, all other factors being equal, as all of the Internet related attack vectors have gone away. Of course you cannot, because it cannot actually be more secure, and so you revert to more personal attacks and further load claims without substance, rather stating any actual counter arguments that might actually mean something.
Big surprise - yet again nothing of value in your answer = Point value = 0 = STILL no substance in your remarks. That tongue must be really nasty with fungus.

Total value of what came out of your mouth = 0

Come play with the big boys when you get your shit together, 'Kid'.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47741037) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

This from an idiot that thinks that disonnecting a network from the internet magically makes it secure :-) Later loser. Plonk

Obviously it isn't magic, though at your level of comprehension (or lack thereof) it might seem like it.

Not connecting a system or a network to the Internet removes the vast majority of possible attack vectors, so yes it's inherently more secure than any system or network connected to the Internet.

As obviously, you have nothing of substance to say so you hide behind insults and obnoxiousness - so please, unless you actually come up with something other than some childish level of discourse just stop answering.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47726865) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

No answer from you, as expected based on your previous posts showing that you don't actually know much of anything and try and get by on an acerbic sense of humor that really just comes across as obnoxiousness.

So you go right ahead and ROTFLYAO because it's obviously all that you're truly capable of doing. Well, that and defecating from your mouth.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47721207) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

"You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure."

I didn't read past that phenomenally ridiculous statement other than to read the second sentence, almost accidentally. Also, .mil. Make sure you explain to the military that the vast majority of the computers they use are insecure. ROTFLMAO

I'm sure they're quite aware that anything connected to the Internet isn't secure.

Do you think otherwise? Do you really think that anything that IS connected to the Internet can be completely secure?

I'm putting up with your obnoxiousness for now just to see where you take this, if anywhere.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47719343) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.

Let me know how your IT can remote in from home without having an Internet connection at some point. Remoting in is nearly a requirement of all information systems.

'Remoting' is not in and of itself a requirement. Getting the job done, whatever that job is, is the requirement. If you need 24x7 coverage for whatever job needs to get done, then hire enough people to have onsite 24x7 coverage.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 89

by sociocapitalist (#47719321) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

I understood your point. At least I thought I did. I thought you were proposing that each hospital have a seperate physical LAN for patient data. Now I see your poroposal is even more absurd. You propose that a seperate WAN be created just for hostpitals. In order to make this secure, it would obviously mean running seperate physical connections, which couldn't be run to the same endpoints, meaning of course the investment of billions of dollars including the cost of new buildings, land, construction, security personnel, etc.

I suppose if by "not much of a cost difference" you mean embark on a multi-billion to trillion dollar project that will take decades to complete, then yes. The best part of your idea? It would mean people attack a diffent network, which also would have the same heartbleed style issue, since having a different network doesn't make things magically secure. Great idea though!

You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure. This is why the military has networks that are not connected to the Internet.

To address your point about heartbleed still being an issue - it would be an 'internal' issue and as such, on a network not connected to the Internet, would not be an entrance point for anyone outside the network and it's much easier to police who does what on your own network than across the Internet.

You think only in terms of cost and not in terms of requirements. On top of that you are, of course, pulling the costs out of your ass but whatever - obviously you feel that whatever the cost would be it wouldn't be worth it to have the level of security provided, even comparing those out of your ass estimates versus the mufti-trillion dollar a year medical industry in the US.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...