That seems trivially defeated; they have no way of knowing whether the same account (or even same character) is actually being played by a single person.
It's worth noting that social engineering is quite often the cheapest method. I was at a conference back in 1999, where a Navy guy pointed out that in 'red team' testing, they'd found that the typical Systems Administrator would roll over for an average of $7000. No, I don't know how the details of how they conducted the test.
One could argue (or hope) that _most_ SysAdmins these days are more cognizant of the risks, so probably not as casual as they used to be.
Not disputing your point, but regarding the seemingly low number: the job market may have had an effect, too; 1999 was a very good time to be in IT. Quitting one job and picking up a couple months' salary in cash probably looked a lot better than it would for most people now.
Such trains have existed for decades already in at least Finland and they certainly haven't killed airlines. Even though there are many advantages: You can put all your stuff in the car when leaving home and at your destination you get to use your own, familiar car instead of a rental car that would also cost more.
That does sound good. I am guessing that airlines in Finland aren't actively hostile to their customers like the ones in the US have become. Many people here are looking for a reason to abandon them at this point.
Sure he was trying to protect the integrity of the holy 30 minute rule, but it was no longer his job, or his problem, he should have handed over the keys.
If it's no longer his job, or his problem, then why should he care about whether the company has keys or not? Seriously, if someone fires me, then calls me later asking the password to login to their own computers, I'll laugh and close the phone. Keeping track of a root password is work, and since I no longer work for you, and don't have any reason to like you...
...but want to work again, you hand over the passwords. Not because you're contractually obligated, but because it's the ethical and professional thing to do. This isn't Junior High.
You mean kind of like how a lot of non-Americans like to find the property of "being an American" as somehow intrinsically to blame in so many situations?
All people need to simplify. You will never understand everything, so you research carefully the things that interest you, and everything else needs to be ignored or fit into a bite-sized piece of intellectualism that you don't need to give any thought to. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
I would say American companies agree with you. However, given that the average CEO's pay far exceeds all the extra benefits for literally hundreds of employees, I consider it a pretty shaky stance. If you want to start talking about value, how about starting at the top and leading by example? Then perhaps I will listen to you, because until then it looks like naked greed to me... in which case your accusation that I am being greedy doesn't sting too much.
What glory? Most people think the iPod was the world's first mp3 player, and even the minority who are aware that isn't the case can't generally name the first marketed device, let alone the inventor(s). Glory requires advertisement; we only know about Thermopylae because the Greeks bragged about it. If your invention is stolen by a huge company, surely their advertising budget will also write you out of the history books.
An unenforceable law only weakens the rule of law and respect for authority. It creates an antagonistic relationship between the police and the populace they are meant to protect. It is in every way counterproductive. Even in your future dreamworld you cannot fully enforce the law because "...Home-grown drugs will never be stoppable..." This means that you should not make a law against it, you should either leave it alone or regulate the activity to try to minimize the negative impact and perhaps turn it to positive use (usually done via taxation.)
That assumes that they are killing because it's good times and not to protect their own lives and/or business interests, which seems unlikely.
If drugs were legal you wouldn't need to kill to eliminate competition, you wouldn't need to kill to protect yourself from law enforcement and you wouldn't need to kill to protect your product; not only would you not NEED to kill to accomplish those ends, killing wouldn't even be the most efficient way. Once the law in on your side you can ruin a man AND get all his money AND come out of it being the Good Guy. Someone steals your drugs? The police look into it for you, and the stuff was insured even if they don't find it.
It's not like you don't have a pretty good model to see that your stance isn't realistic.
Clearly it is an Interesting Smallpox from Treasure Table GG, found in Module HV-1, The Temple of Elemental Cold.
Re:854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think the prevailing attitude is that if you don't have the clearance to know who has that clearance, then you probably don't actually need people with that clearance.
This was all also true for 10+ years before 9/11, when many of today's "security" measures were not in place. How does your theory account for this? Could it be that we already had successful prevention measures in place and they simply failed one time, with only small tweaks needed instead of a deeply rooted culture of fear and suspicion?
So what you're saying is your music doesn't make any money, but their marketing does.
So why should they pay you?
What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist? As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns. It makes logical and business sense to retain one's source of income. The record label business model is self-destructive; it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable.
I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them.
I don't see where your link says anything about giving highly technical raw data to bloggers who know nothing and couldn't care less whether what they say is actually true.
There seem to be many assumptions here that bloggers are equivalent to the scientific community. I believe these assumptions are ill-considered.
The first one was interesting because it was breaking new ground in several ways: the engine had no load times and you could smoothly transition from overland to dungeon and back, the mechanics of having a party instead of one hero were new to the genre, the AI was surprisingly good for the time (some say it was too good, leading to complaints of watching the game instead of playing it), and the quality of the music was far better than most video games at the time could boast. I'm not sure any of those are enough to recommend a game these days, although the complete lack of load times (necessarily meaning a completely contiguous world) is still uncommon; they're great games as-is, but how much better would Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 have been without the load times?
Here is a clip of the music; the main theme to the first game.
So... Try joking to a security officer at an airport that you had a love explosivion last night with your girlfriend. Merely mentioning half the word "explo..." will make you miss your flight.
We all demanded security - so, we got it.
Interesting. Can you explain to me how this is security that we got? Unless you've watched David Finch's Dune too many times I don't see how you can think that keeping people from uttering the word explosion is any security from actual explosions. We didn't get security. We got abuse of power. Nobody asked for that.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems trivially defeated; they have no way of knowing whether the same account (or even same character) is actually being played by a single person.
It's worth noting that social engineering is quite often the cheapest method. I was at a conference back in 1999, where a Navy guy pointed out that in 'red team' testing, they'd found that the typical Systems Administrator would roll over for an average of $7000. No, I don't know how the details of how they conducted the test.
One could argue (or hope) that _most_ SysAdmins these days are more cognizant of the risks, so probably not as casual as they used to be.
Not disputing your point, but regarding the seemingly low number: the job market may have had an effect, too; 1999 was a very good time to be in IT. Quitting one job and picking up a couple months' salary in cash probably looked a lot better than it would for most people now.
Such trains have existed for decades already in at least Finland and they certainly haven't killed airlines. Even though there are many advantages: You can put all your stuff in the car when leaving home and at your destination you get to use your own, familiar car instead of a rental car that would also cost more.
That does sound good. I am guessing that airlines in Finland aren't actively hostile to their customers like the ones in the US have become. Many people here are looking for a reason to abandon them at this point.
If it's no longer his job, or his problem, then why should he care about whether the company has keys or not? Seriously, if someone fires me, then calls me later asking the password to login to their own computers, I'll laugh and close the phone. Keeping track of a root password is work, and since I no longer work for you, and don't have any reason to like you...
...but want to work again, you hand over the passwords. Not because you're contractually obligated, but because it's the ethical and professional thing to do. This isn't Junior High.
You mean kind of like how a lot of non-Americans like to find the property of "being an American" as somehow intrinsically to blame in so many situations?
All people need to simplify. You will never understand everything, so you research carefully the things that interest you, and everything else needs to be ignored or fit into a bite-sized piece of intellectualism that you don't need to give any thought to. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
I would say American companies agree with you. However, given that the average CEO's pay far exceeds all the extra benefits for literally hundreds of employees, I consider it a pretty shaky stance. If you want to start talking about value, how about starting at the top and leading by example? Then perhaps I will listen to you, because until then it looks like naked greed to me... in which case your accusation that I am being greedy doesn't sting too much.
What glory? Most people think the iPod was the world's first mp3 player, and even the minority who are aware that isn't the case can't generally name the first marketed device, let alone the inventor(s). Glory requires advertisement; we only know about Thermopylae because the Greeks bragged about it. If your invention is stolen by a huge company, surely their advertising budget will also write you out of the history books.
An unenforceable law only weakens the rule of law and respect for authority. It creates an antagonistic relationship between the police and the populace they are meant to protect. It is in every way counterproductive. Even in your future dreamworld you cannot fully enforce the law because "...Home-grown drugs will never be stoppable..." This means that you should not make a law against it, you should either leave it alone or regulate the activity to try to minimize the negative impact and perhaps turn it to positive use (usually done via taxation.)
People have done drugs as long as we have had recorded history. It's not social, it's biological.
That assumes that they are killing because it's good times and not to protect their own lives and/or business interests, which seems unlikely.
If drugs were legal you wouldn't need to kill to eliminate competition, you wouldn't need to kill to protect yourself from law enforcement and you wouldn't need to kill to protect your product; not only would you not NEED to kill to accomplish those ends, killing wouldn't even be the most efficient way. Once the law in on your side you can ruin a man AND get all his money AND come out of it being the Good Guy. Someone steals your drugs? The police look into it for you, and the stuff was insured even if they don't find it.
It's not like you don't have a pretty good model to see that your stance isn't realistic.
How is parent a troll? He's right; simply dehumanizing your enemy is not the path to any victory.
In this case i'm so happy they can't use the "Think of the children" card... but I know they would love to! If only Julian Assange was a pedophile.
This actually is the "think of the children" card... who is it that you think we send to actually fight these wars?
He's always been that way.
Clearly it is an Interesting Smallpox from Treasure Table GG, found in Module HV-1, The Temple of Elemental Cold.
I think the prevailing attitude is that if you don't have the clearance to know who has that clearance, then you probably don't actually need people with that clearance.
This was all also true for 10+ years before 9/11, when many of today's "security" measures were not in place. How does your theory account for this? Could it be that we already had successful prevention measures in place and they simply failed one time, with only small tweaks needed instead of a deeply rooted culture of fear and suspicion?
And why shouldn't they? Look what the parents have been putting up with from their politicians for the last ten years.
So what you're saying is your music doesn't make any money, but their marketing does.
So why should they pay you?
What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist? As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns. It makes logical and business sense to retain one's source of income. The record label business model is self-destructive; it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable.
I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them.
You could move him yourself. You're just being lazy. Admit it.
I don't see where your link says anything about giving highly technical raw data to bloggers who know nothing and couldn't care less whether what they say is actually true.
There seem to be many assumptions here that bloggers are equivalent to the scientific community. I believe these assumptions are ill-considered.
I wish I could mod this "-1, Scary."
The first one was interesting because it was breaking new ground in several ways: the engine had no load times and you could smoothly transition from overland to dungeon and back, the mechanics of having a party instead of one hero were new to the genre, the AI was surprisingly good for the time (some say it was too good, leading to complaints of watching the game instead of playing it), and the quality of the music was far better than most video games at the time could boast. I'm not sure any of those are enough to recommend a game these days, although the complete lack of load times (necessarily meaning a completely contiguous world) is still uncommon; they're great games as-is, but how much better would Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 have been without the load times?
Here is a clip of the music; the main theme to the first game.
A nebulous set of requirements leads to software that doesn't fulfill unwritten desires of the client. An old story.
It goes on retail every July, according to their schedule. Here is a map of the retail locations, all in Delaware.
So... Try joking to a security officer at an airport that you had a love explosivion last night with your girlfriend. Merely mentioning half the word "explo..." will make you miss your flight. We all demanded security - so, we got it.
Interesting. Can you explain to me how this is security that we got? Unless you've watched David Finch's Dune too many times I don't see how you can think that keeping people from uttering the word explosion is any security from actual explosions. We didn't get security. We got abuse of power. Nobody asked for that.