Yes, it allows you to see the MAC addresses of the LOCAL Wifi that you are recieving. You have to be physically present to make that work (or more exactly, your antenna has to be physically present). It doesn't work remotely over the internet.
They definately shouldn't be writing SQL, just dumping cells and rows into the database. Let the professionals write the SQL.
As for approachable tools, the hammer is quite easily understood by all. However, results vary. Someone who frequently hammers their thumb or chokes up on a tiny trim hammer going tap tap tap tap (ad infinitum) on a framing nail shouldn't try to build a house.
In some cases (looking at you Cisco) the customer had no knowledge of or input into the default password either (nor the ability to remove it if they ever do find out about it).
Entirely different regulation by different people with a different dynamic. Not all regulations are good or well considered. Not all regulations are bad or poorly thought out. More thinking, less knee jerking.
So tell me, how do you change the default backdoor password hard coded into Cisco products? You know, the ones they denied the existence of until security researchers proved their existence?
As for the prop. 54 warnings, no. I know they don't mean much since they're stuck on anything and everything just in case. That position is based on rational analysis of the individual regulation.
Knee jerking against a new regulation just because it's a regulation from Ca. doesn't make you smart, hip, or cool. It just makes you a teen aged rebel without a clue, even if you're middle aged.
It's the mandate or nothing. Companies have had DECADES to understand that default passwords are a terrible idea. Do you figure they were somehow within seconds of the light bulb going on when the bill was signed?
If the corporations themselves were the only ones to suffer, that would be fine. If their customers might suffer as well, I could almost buy in to the idea that they should have done more research. But neither is the case. The unsecured devices get rooted and then attack 3rd parties that had no input into the terrible decision to have default passwords. In some cases (looking at you Cisco) the customer had no knowledge of or input into the default password either (nor the ability to remove it if they ever do find out about it).
When their bad dogs stop crapping in my yard, they can be free to do as they will.
And even funnier when anyone anywhere with more than 1 functioning neuron in their head realizes that the phrase "Not for sale in the State of California" on any IOT device means it's hopelessly insecure and refuses to buy it.
People feeling entitled is a problem. For example, people feeling entitled to pay people less than it costs to live and expecting the rest of society to keep their "worker units" running for them. Why should they feel entitled to all that labor for less than the cost to produce it?
I suppose next they'll want to only pay 80% of the power bill and have the taxpayers kick in the other 20%.
Those figures are an average that includes some fixed costs that exist regardless of the amount the employee is paid. I don't dispute that those costs exist, only that they scale with pay.
Nobody has the time to read a 20 page wall of text or the money to hire a lawyer to tell them what it actually says. Those walls of text are another example of poor customer interaction and when they contain anything even vaguely surprising buried in paragraph 4 on page 10 in fine print, border on fraud.
It's amazing how many lies they tell before you even get to say the first word. By the time a human comes on the line, you have been told how excellent their product or service is (so why did I need to call support?), how important my call is (so why don'y you answer it?), the someone will answer shortly (by what definition?), that the call volume is unusually high (has it ever NOT been "unusually" high?). Then the person who finally does answer lies about their name! No, I do not believe that the person with the strong Indian accent on a line where I can hear the distinct echo of an international call is named "Bob".
Then there's the implicit lie. I called X corp but I am talking to someone who works for an outsource company who has no ability to make any decisions whatsoever within X corp or, for that matter, to do anything but work through a useless flip book. If the problem isn't in the flip book, they often don't even know where to transfer the call to get the problem actually resolved.
So you think it's an unreasonable expectation that a support person actually has the ability to look in to a problem and tell me truthfully what has gone wrong? And that it's unreasonable to expect that they at least have some way to talk to someone with the knowledge and authority to make a decision?
My finding with the local ISP is that the CS reps don't even have the ability to see if there are outstanding trouble tickets for the network side in my area. They also don't have the training or common sense needed to understand that if the network is down, they can't ping my modem.
They also don't seem to get that if they reach the end of the flow chart and the problem isn't fixed, it's time to send the problem to the next tier.
In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.
They'll likely get some of that back in the form of reduced costs of employee turnover and improved productivity.
It's not nothing, but note that even if Bezos paid it personally, he would remain the richest man in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it allows you to see the MAC addresses of the LOCAL Wifi that you are recieving. You have to be physically present to make that work (or more exactly, your antenna has to be physically present). It doesn't work remotely over the internet.
Again, only if you're on the same LAN segment.
They definately shouldn't be writing SQL, just dumping cells and rows into the database. Let the professionals write the SQL.
As for approachable tools, the hammer is quite easily understood by all. However, results vary. Someone who frequently hammers their thumb or chokes up on a tiny trim hammer going tap tap tap tap (ad infinitum) on a framing nail shouldn't try to build a house.
In some cases (looking at you Cisco) the customer had no knowledge of or input into the default password either (nor the ability to remove it if they ever do find out about it).
I am well aware of that. I also know the guy's name isn't actually "Bob". That just means that the ISP has failed to meet a reasonable expectation.
Entirely different regulation by different people with a different dynamic. Not all regulations are good or well considered. Not all regulations are bad or poorly thought out. More thinking, less knee jerking.
So tell me, how do you change the default backdoor password hard coded into Cisco products? You know, the ones they denied the existence of until security researchers proved their existence?
As for the prop. 54 warnings, no. I know they don't mean much since they're stuck on anything and everything just in case. That position is based on rational analysis of the individual regulation.
Knee jerking against a new regulation just because it's a regulation from Ca. doesn't make you smart, hip, or cool. It just makes you a teen aged rebel without a clue, even if you're middle aged.
It's the mandate or nothing. Companies have had DECADES to understand that default passwords are a terrible idea. Do you figure they were somehow within seconds of the light bulb going on when the bill was signed?
If the corporations themselves were the only ones to suffer, that would be fine. If their customers might suffer as well, I could almost buy in to the idea that they should have done more research. But neither is the case. The unsecured devices get rooted and then attack 3rd parties that had no input into the terrible decision to have default passwords. In some cases (looking at you Cisco) the customer had no knowledge of or input into the default password either (nor the ability to remove it if they ever do find out about it).
When their bad dogs stop crapping in my yard, they can be free to do as they will.
And not NATing or using IP privacy.
And even funnier when anyone anywhere with more than 1 functioning neuron in their head realizes that the phrase "Not for sale in the State of California" on any IOT device means it's hopelessly insecure and refuses to buy it.
So you are the champion of the flashing 12:00?
You want security cameras to be wide open?
Do you leave your house unlocked because keys are too hard to use?
Only if you're on the same LAN segment. If you're just scanning random IPs from afar, you won't have the MAC.
A thesaurus shows that they are not synonyms. A dictionary shows why not.
Wait for the other shoe. It's not logical to think that the Chinese government ONLY had those outsource manufacturers alter Supermicro boards.
Many other brands are likely affected.
Go read a dictionary. Refuted and denied are not synonyms.
People feeling entitled is a problem. For example, people feeling entitled to pay people less than it costs to live and expecting the rest of society to keep their "worker units" running for them. Why should they feel entitled to all that labor for less than the cost to produce it?
I suppose next they'll want to only pay 80% of the power bill and have the taxpayers kick in the other 20%.
So you're saying that the Tea Party are a bunch of pinkos?
Those figures are an average that includes some fixed costs that exist regardless of the amount the employee is paid. I don't dispute that those costs exist, only that they scale with pay.
Nobody has the time to read a 20 page wall of text or the money to hire a lawyer to tell them what it actually says. Those walls of text are another example of poor customer interaction and when they contain anything even vaguely surprising buried in paragraph 4 on page 10 in fine print, border on fraud.
When I hear the phrase "customer journy", I also hear "The ballad of Lemiwinks".
It's amazing how many lies they tell before you even get to say the first word. By the time a human comes on the line, you have been told how excellent their product or service is (so why did I need to call support?), how important my call is (so why don'y you answer it?), the someone will answer shortly (by what definition?), that the call volume is unusually high (has it ever NOT been "unusually" high?). Then the person who finally does answer lies about their name! No, I do not believe that the person with the strong Indian accent on a line where I can hear the distinct echo of an international call is named "Bob".
Then there's the implicit lie. I called X corp but I am talking to someone who works for an outsource company who has no ability to make any decisions whatsoever within X corp or, for that matter, to do anything but work through a useless flip book. If the problem isn't in the flip book, they often don't even know where to transfer the call to get the problem actually resolved.
So you think it's an unreasonable expectation that a support person actually has the ability to look in to a problem and tell me truthfully what has gone wrong? And that it's unreasonable to expect that they at least have some way to talk to someone with the knowledge and authority to make a decision?
My finding with the local ISP is that the CS reps don't even have the ability to see if there are outstanding trouble tickets for the network side in my area. They also don't have the training or common sense needed to understand that if the network is down, they can't ping my modem.
They also don't seem to get that if they reach the end of the flow chart and the problem isn't fixed, it's time to send the problem to the next tier.
No, but regulate capitalism does cure a lot of ills. So much so that it was strongly recommended by Smith.
In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.
They'll likely get some of that back in the form of reduced costs of employee turnover and improved productivity.
It's not nothing, but note that even if Bezos paid it personally, he would remain the richest man in the world.
Chantix can be even worse. There have been actual homicides and suicides.