What many people forget about Enterprise networks and systems is that they are purposely standardised and purposely not bleeding edge because we cannot afford to have outages on such systems - boring, reliable and when they work we leave them alone. Sure we could cut call costs by using Skype on desktops, but the telephone system works, doesn't cost us a fortune and is easy to support. When we have muppets bringing in their toys and gadgets they not only screw up their company assigned desktops, they also expose our networks to traffic (malicious or otherwise) which may interfere with our carefully cultivated enterprise systems. Leave the toys at home.
"I want to hire a project manager" is usually a translation for "The last guy in here who tried to implement a project screwed it up, some magical project manager person will of course do it perfectly next time because all my existing staff are muppets"
That's because uptil now teams could choose whoever they wish as an ECU supplier. The new regulations are forcing teams to standardise on a single ECU.
Developers, or rather their company, should be required to produce a security statement of somesort. This would set out the level of confidence they have that their software is secure. It would set out the development practices that they used to ensure security, and would incorporate a simple risk assessment.
It would then be up to the customer to decide what level of security they require. If the developer says "I don't care about security and wrote the software with that principle in mind", then a customer has no right to complain if they purchase the software and security issues arise. Alternatively, if a developer says that they develop with security in mind and adopt principle x, y, z and testing strategies a, b and c, then if a security bug arises that should have been caught by one of those activities the customer has a legitimate grievance.
No great power rules forever, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.
Many nations, particularly in Europe, have gone through periods of being the pre-eminant world power whereby they could impose their views and wishes through force. All those powers have eventually crumbled, and been replaced by another power who again gets caught in a vicious circle.
Bitter experience, including two world wars, has thought those nations that might does not equal right, and the only solution for governing world affairs comes through dialogue and a system of international law. The US right now is of course the great power and feel that they can impose their rules on others with impunity, someday that will change and the US will find itself looking for international solutions.
What's this "own root servers" business about, you do realise that there are plenty of root servers located outside the US right?
On the substantive point, it is to my mind a good thing that "control" of the Internet should be taken from a single government and handed to a body that has broad international support. Arguments against seem to boil down to some chest thumping US flag waving nonsense which has feck all technical merits.
The $100 billion isn't being loaded into the nose cone of a rocket and just fired into a crater on the moon. That $100b is supporting high tech industry, is supporting advanced engineering jobs and ultimately encourages society to push boundaries in science that otherwise would not be challenged.
Some administrators take every opportunity to whinge and moan when Microsoft products have a security vulnerability. When Microsoft do the "right thing" (such as XP SP2), there is more whinging and moaning . Security is not easy - the spin on security being a "business enabler" should have died with the dot com bust. Security restricts and breaks functionality, sometimes deliberately, with the tradeoff that you are now accepting less overall risk in your environment.
I propose that all 3G devices be renamed immediately to "Personal Porn Device"/PPD. Which is the only way this one minute clip business will be successful.
along with incentives like the option to turn banner ads off for registered users
I like that idea! (one of those nice simple ideas you wish you'd thought of yourself). I guess it'd be easy to knock up some simple code (maybe a cookie with a "noadd" in it) and then before calling the add check for the existence of this. Yup - so what would you pay for this at an average smallish site you visit often - $20 a year? $10? Reasonable?
uhm the point is they won the arbitration decision but subsequently lost a court challenge.
It's a sign of a system gone mad when common english words can be challenged. It equally reflects a lack of common sense in the justice system when it makes such interpretations. Time for a rethink...
A question for those screaming on about ad blocking. How exactly do you think websites pay their bills? Do you think the money for hosting and bandwidth drops magically from the sky? Internet ad spending has allowed content providers provide content for free, and all we ask in return is that you look at/click on the occasional banner. I'm lucky that my site is run in my spare time, others have salaries and rent to pay. As more and more of the web community decide that they aren't going to respond to traditional advertising (banners) of course content providers and site owners are going to have to look for alternative delivery methods. Pop-up banners suck, but when you're getting.15% clickthrough on static banners they look awfully tempting. The more people who run ad blocking software, the lower that % ctr drops, the less income there is to pay bills, the less content is supplied for free - it's not a zero sum game.
Slashdot Mirror
What many people forget about Enterprise networks and systems is that they are purposely standardised and purposely not bleeding edge because we cannot afford to have outages on such systems - boring, reliable and when they work we leave them alone. Sure we could cut call costs by using Skype on desktops, but the telephone system works, doesn't cost us a fortune and is easy to support. When we have muppets bringing in their toys and gadgets they not only screw up their company assigned desktops, they also expose our networks to traffic (malicious or otherwise) which may interfere with our carefully cultivated enterprise systems. Leave the toys at home.
"I want to hire a project manager" is usually a translation for "The last guy in here who tried to implement a project screwed it up, some magical project manager person will of course do it perfectly next time because all my existing staff are muppets"
That's because uptil now teams could choose whoever they wish as an ECU supplier. The new regulations are forcing teams to standardise on a single ECU.
I agree 100% with him, and that's 100% more than usual.
I suggest mod +5 Funny McCreevy for pissing off 219 Socialists MEPs in one go
Developers, or rather their company, should be required to produce a security statement of somesort. This would set out the level of confidence they have that their software is secure. It would set out the development practices that they used to ensure security, and would incorporate a simple risk assessment.
It would then be up to the customer to decide what level of security they require. If the developer says "I don't care about security and wrote the software with that principle in mind", then a customer has no right to complain if they purchase the software and security issues arise. Alternatively, if a developer says that they develop with security in mind and adopt principle x, y, z and testing strategies a, b and c, then if a security bug arises that should have been caught by one of those activities the customer has a legitimate grievance.
No great power rules forever, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.
Many nations, particularly in Europe, have gone through periods of being the pre-eminant world power whereby they could impose their views and wishes through force. All those powers have eventually crumbled, and been replaced by another power who again gets caught in a vicious circle.
Bitter experience, including two world wars, has thought those nations that might does not equal right, and the only solution for governing world affairs comes through dialogue and a system of international law. The US right now is of course the great power and feel that they can impose their rules on others with impunity, someday that will change and the US will find itself looking for international solutions.
What's this "own root servers" business about, you do realise that there are plenty of root servers located outside the US right?
On the substantive point, it is to my mind a good thing that "control" of the Internet should be taken from a single government and handed to a body that has broad international support. Arguments against seem to boil down to some chest thumping US flag waving nonsense which has feck all technical merits.
The $100 billion isn't being loaded into the nose cone of a rocket and just fired into a crater on the moon. That $100b is supporting high tech industry, is supporting advanced engineering jobs and ultimately encourages society to push boundaries in science that otherwise would not be challenged.
Some administrators take every opportunity to whinge and moan when Microsoft products have a security vulnerability. When Microsoft do the "right thing" (such as XP SP2), there is more whinging and moaning . Security is not easy - the spin on security being a "business enabler" should have died with the dot com bust. Security restricts and breaks functionality, sometimes deliberately, with the tradeoff that you are now accepting less overall risk in your environment.
I get most of my snacks from the kitchen ;)
I propose that all 3G devices be renamed immediately to "Personal Porn Device"/PPD. Which is the only way this one minute clip business will be successful.
Wouldn't it be great if this could learn how I *work*, so leaving me free to concentrate on games ;)
along with incentives like the option to turn banner ads off for registered users
I like that idea! (one of those nice simple ideas you wish you'd thought of yourself). I guess it'd be easy to knock up some simple code (maybe a cookie with a "noadd" in it) and then before calling the add check for the existence of this. Yup - so what would you pay for this at an average smallish site you visit often - $20 a year? $10? Reasonable?
uhm the point is they won the arbitration decision but subsequently lost a court challenge. It's a sign of a system gone mad when common english words can be challenged. It equally reflects a lack of common sense in the justice system when it makes such interpretations. Time for a rethink...
A question for those screaming on about ad blocking. How exactly do you think websites pay their bills? Do you think the money for hosting and bandwidth drops magically from the sky? Internet ad spending has allowed content providers provide content for free, and all we ask in return is that you look at/click on the occasional banner. I'm lucky that my site is run in my spare time, others have salaries and rent to pay. As more and more of the web community decide that they aren't going to respond to traditional advertising (banners) of course content providers and site owners are going to have to look for alternative delivery methods. Pop-up banners suck, but when you're getting .15% clickthrough on static banners they look awfully tempting. The more people who run ad blocking software, the lower that % ctr drops, the less income there is to pay bills, the less content is supplied for free - it's not a zero sum game.