I can't begin to imagine how many people I've worked with over the years that have only worked somewhere because of the health benefits. Make the health benefits no longer an issue and you gain better competition in the market for where people can work. Remove the barrier and all of a sudden a lot of places that previously would not have attracted enterprise class talent open up.
The fact that some of these places are starts ups is largely incidental. Think of it this way, something like 40% of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Why? Because they were hardworking and didn't have anything holding them back.
I know I've turned down employment opportunities for a lack of viable health insurance for my family, I have to imagine that I'm far from the only one. What happens when people are no longer held back by this very practical concern and can go for broke like the immigrant entrepreneur?
Look, if your in a first world country this kind of thing has a great deal of meaning as labor costs are high, safety means something and nobody wants to take an asset out of service. However in the real world the vast majority of ships fly a flag of convenience from a country like Panama and maintenance is the absolute minimum possible as those countries give safety and other concerns lip service only.
It's why ships crews can work out of places like the US for cruises but completely ignore things like labor laws. Think of a ship (not boat) that doesn't belong to a countries navy, now google that ship and look for the flag it's flying. Chances are/really/ good that flag has nothing to do with the country it operates out of.
Companies like Carnival could easily resolve their ship stranding issues by adopting maintenance standards used in other countries, but that costs money and they don't want to spend that. As long as they can pass the safety inspection to dock that is all they care about. Why do you think older ships get renamed and sold after every 10 years? After about 30 years that once glamorous cruise ship, might cargo ship, oil tanker or whatever will simply end up being broken on a beach in India because it's cheaper.
Your talking about an industry that has spent centuries learning how to take advantage of international differences in law to avoid spending money on labor. Before that? There were no regulations requiring it to begin with. These kinds of companies aren't going to dry dock their ships unless they really absolutely have to, and then they'd probably rather sell the ship.
However you are wrong. In the eyes of Wall Street it is perfectly fair to have programs that scan announcements, look for key words and make trades based on what is contained.
Wall Street hires very good developers, uses customs Asics, has the lowest latency that they can to their servers and so on. The key here being that anyone can do these things and therefore the SEC considers that it is fair. The results are that you end up with trading algorithms betting against other trading algorithms.
In this particular case they got caught out because of the time differential on the announcement. It sounds like someone had insider information and told their systems to act milliseconds before anyone else. Unfortunately for them things are so closely scrutinized that those milliseconds were noticed and it will be pretty damn hard to deny having insider knowledge. The likely end result is that someone will be going to prison.
The next scoundrel will get their timing down just right to avoid making it as obvious. The risk of course is that everyone else has their automated system into play and if you get it wrong you lose instead of win. It's a numbers game where latency is taken much more seriously than by the gaming crowd and the timing sequences are quite well known by the players in the game.
Which is why in applications that have nothing to do with non-profit youth based organizations the BSA doesn't do anything. You'll find the word Scout used from Navigation systems to International off road vehicles. It is the context of the word that makes all the difference in the world.
It's how Apple got away with ripping off their name from Apple records (Beetles publishing company). They didn't have any notable legal issues over the matter until they went into the business of selling music. For the same reason you could safely make a car called the "Apple" but you would be sued without hesitation if you tried doing anything in the computer industry with the name of "Apple".
This is a horrible idea, let's start with how credit worked in the old days. You got a house loan or car loan by paying 1/3 the cost up front. You also paid off your credit on terms that were much shorter than today's terms. I don't know about you, but outside the rich or someone that has been saving for many years that is simply no longer feasible in today's society. Simply put, only the rich could afford to get credit if we adopted the old standards.
Your also forgetting other reasons that people went to numbers such as racism, religious based discrimination and so on. When you had everything done by having someone approve the loan by who they knew the result was that people that were in better favor with the banker were more likely to be approved. In many towns if you were a protestant or a catholic you simply couldn't get credit in that town, or you had to go your bank. If you weren't a member of either church in good standing than you certainly weren't getting a loan.
Problems with this kind of behavior became so bad that it became known as redlining. Bankers would literally draw a line around certain neighborhoods on a map with a red line. If you lived in that neighborhood you either couldn't get credit or had to pay a lot more for it.
Many lawsuits were filed and banks lost badly in days gone by over these practices and the modern credit system was in large part derived as a result of them. Nowadays the person approving your loan is someone you don't know, probably doesn't live in the same state as you and who tries to look at you abstractly - as a number - for the express purpose of ensuring that discrimination doesn't occur.
All that being said, the idea that people should rely less on debt is one I agree with, but you have obviously never worked in credit.
My experience is pretty much entirely large enterprise, which means working in environments such as you describe. As you said you 3124 active SSL connections. Start by filtering out which ones are going to sites you know are legitimate. That should filter a fair amount right there, than you start filtering out those connections that are external.
Once you have filtered out the destination ranges for the known good sessions you have a far smaller set of SSL connections to investigate. Look at the source and destination IP addresses of those that remain and start finding out who they belong to and start building a white list.
There may be a very legitimate reason to have an SSL session setup with Estonia (I've seen some great programmers work from there) or not. The point is that you treat SSL connections just like you would firewall ports. What's your destination, source and what are you using it for? The entire idea is to look for SSL connections from servers that you don't already know about. You don't want to investigate all of them, just the new ones that pop that aren't on the change management white-list.
I don't mean to make this sound trivial, it's not, but the process itself is fairly easy. Your working for a large enterprise by the sounds of it, chances are your on a team with a number of security people available and enterprise class resources. It's really just a matter of doing the legwork to run things down. Now if you don't have any kind of change management in place and have to chase down all 3124 connections to find out who's doing what it's no longer easy, but that is an entirely different story.
This should have been easy to catch with their IPS. Why is their an encrypted data stream going from a server to a server outside the organization? Even without using an SSL decryption device to look at the contents of the stream, the mere fact that an encrypted stream of data was going to an unauthorized destination should have set off alarm bells by it's own right.
I've seen any number of environments that simply blocked encrypted data sessions until they had been white-listed. It's something that ought to be in your change management system along with all of your other firewall rules. The fact that a major credit agency got owned by this tells me that they probably outsourced their security to India along with the rest of their staff.
People die every single day, 107 people die every single minute of every single day. Earthquakes also happen fairly routinely in certain parts of the world. When they are large they are covered by the news, in particular their death tolls are well covered to the point many are saturated.
I understand you may not care for what I say, but just try to get the TV or major newspaper to cover an average person who died in an average way after they have died. The bottom line is that people simply don't care about people they don't know - it's not newsworthy. Death only becomes newsworthy when the person is (in)famous or dies in a notable way.
However the creation of a new island from an earthquake if far from an everyday occurrence. It is also notably something that strikes a scientific bell with a community that generally has at least a token interest in science.
Myst sold incredibly well because it was a novelty and people had never experienced something like it before. Unfortunately it lacked anything to retain people's attention. Sure it had puzzles, but the puzzles weren't part of the environment, and puzzles could be solved with cheap games that didn't require the then expensive hardware. Myst lacked anything that would lock you into engaging within the environment itself. The result was that it became nothing more than the pretty picture that may as well have been a background picture.
Because Myst never did take advantage of what it had and as a result the novelty quickly wore off. However other people in the industry quickly realized that what the beautiful scenery needed was guns, swords and zombies. The net result was that you had something to engage your attention in the beautiful scenery and adding pretend violence was the perfect recipe. The result has been years of first person shooters that have all been wildly successful by using open environments, beautiful scenery and violence.
This has been a well known problem for at least a couple of decades. Google had their famous cache that was famous for saving peoples hides or embarrassing peoples mistakes. The people that run the Wayback machine have been fighting this problem for many, many years.
Their is a natural resistance to being able to preserve content as it was at the time. People, companies and governments like to make revisionist history and forget that certain things ever happened or change them after the fact. Specialized companies help with reputation management in ensuring that such things disappear for good.
It's a problem from tech support documentation that disappears to finding old employers that have changed their name and moved location. The only way to resolve the issue is to be able to preserve the content as it was for posterity. Always assume your links will vanish and turn your need pages into archive files. If you really want to do something about it donate to the Internet Archive.
Let's balance this out on our options. Option one is three laws from a Science Fiction author who the three laws and the turned around and wrote multiple books about how they inevitably just couldn't work. Option two involves the real world and keep our service members out of harms way from real missiles and bullets.
Let me think real hard about this, obey three fictional laws parodied by the very person who came up with them or protect real human beings from harm? I know that might sound like a tough choice in a science fiction setting, but in the real world most people value human over machines.
Yes, and that means connecting to other countries infrastructure in the naive assumption that those other countries don't do the same things the US does. Thus the point on North Korea as if you rule out all of the other countries that spy there is no one left to connect to but themselves. Your not really naive enough to think that countries other than the US don't spy, are you?
RTFA, they are also talking about running their own Fiber to Europe and elsewhere. Meanwhile they forget that European governments also heavily engage on spying on the Internet. You did RTFA, right?
Your missing the bloody point. In the zealous desire to make the NSA the world's boogeyman on all things related to computer security the world is forgetting all of the other security issues that is had/before/ the NSA boogeyman.
People are also naively assuming that the NSA is the only agency to go around spying on other countries like that. It only takes a quick google search to reveal spy agencies from just about every nation on earth. Since the Internet is arguably the cheapest and easiest way to gather information for people it is only natural that the same would be true for governments. People forget that governments spy on other governments because - that is their job.
Now you can either get piss and moan about it, or you can do something security in general. Let me explain things to you with your door locking example, it's a bit like putting up a sign banning Bob the burglar while forgetting that you live in a bad neighborhood with thousands of other burglars.
Do it, do it! While your at it make sure you do the same thing for every other country that spies on other countries on the Internet. Don't forget about countries ranging from France to China to Russia and the vast majority that I haven't named. Take your righteous indignation with you, close your borders and don't forget to ask North Korea how being isolated from almost the entire country is is working out. Dead Dear Leader while be very impressed by his converts on the other side of the world that have taken his lessons about self reliance in stride.
I'm sure Iran can give you pointers about having your own country specific version of the Internet (what do you call that - CAN / Country Area Network?)
Meanwhile the rest of the world that hasn't quite gotten around to ordering tinfoil hats by the pallet is realizing that security actually is an issue and that you can't treat it as an afterthought. Instead people are having a wake up call and starting to realize that security has to be designed into things from the beginning, used throughout the/entire/ process and that you have to stop thinking your going to secure your environment by installing a firewall and the latest antivirus suite.
You have two choices, keep playing the NSA boogeyman card whilst everyone else robs you blind, or get your act together and start doing what you should have been doing to begin with. Blaming the worlds computer security problems on the NSA is a bit like blaming Top Gear for death of old Morris Marina's. There really aren't that many flying pianos and pretty soon you've got to realize that's a lot more to the picture.
If I wanted to read the science I would, and I have, it's something I have done for the last few decades, which is quite a few years before it was politically correct to do so. That isn't the point though, the point is that "science" isn't supposed to be politically charged, it's supposed to be "science".
Science, and reporting on science should rise about the type of petty hyperbole that I see on infecting many other types of reporting. When I read articles or studies about astronomy they tend to be fairly hyperbole free (unless it's an asteroid with the slightest chance of hitting the earth). The same thing applies when I read about almost any other subject that relates to science.
The point of reporting on science is that a reporter is reading through the studies (which number in the thousands, are quite dry reading and too often pay-walled) and reporting on what is new). This is their job and if I find something of interest that I can go and check out the source.
Now climb down out of your god damn ivory tower and get your nose out of the air back to the real world where the average person does not have the time to spend their day reading studies. Sit down, pause and think about it for just a moment and you just might realize that hyperbole free reporting is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.
What I'd love to see is reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole. I'm reasonably certain that I'm far from the only person that's fed up with having hyperbole rammed down my throat and would really rather just have the actual "science" reported.
You do realize that the flu has killedstanford.edu more people (est 20-40 million) in the last century than just about anything short of Communism, right? To quote the Standford site about the sheer scale of the pandemic:
The pandemic affected everyone. With one-quarter of the US and one-fifth of the world infected with the influenza, it was impossible to escape from the illness.
Now, I'm not defending the doomsday preppers, I'm rather inclined to think some of them are nuts from what I've seen on TV, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the flu out of hand.
Look, who's the bigger villain, humans with their penchant for turning anything that moves or doesn't move into a ___burger or climate change that is the current boogeyman?
Who knows? Let's face it, any number of factors from volcanoes to natural predators to climate change to caveman barbeques all likely shared guilt. The world isn't black and white and people need to stop thinking of everything as having a singular one dimensional true answer.
Microsoft's policies with the Surface had everything to do with killing RT. They couldn't have better engineered Surface RT to fail if they tried.
Confusing name - identical to a product the same size and shape and not at all the same thing that is released at the same time. WTF? Inferior screen compared to Surface Pro Window 8 Missing "Start Menu" being replaced by "Start Button" No initial boot to desktop Apps are only available through the market and with a minimum $1.50 charge No side-loading of apps. No backwards compatibility No ability to load anything that isn't approved by Microsoft. All of the disadvantage of Apples walled garden with none of the glamour Poor CPU choice to begin with Not enough RAM Poor heat management The price was far too high No ability to join a domain Can't legally use it for work if you read the license Metro should have been an option and never a forced interaction The worst thing of all was that Microsoft blatantly ignored their users feedback about Windows 8! This arrogance left a bad taste in the mouth of many and word of mouth killed the Surface RT.
Microsoft could have made a killer Surface RT that would have done very well if they hadn't been so arrogant. The attempt to force their "market" and the Metro interface - whatever the consequences killed the Surface. By the time Haswell came out Surface RT was already dead, lost along with a few million missing tablets in a warehouse somewhere.
Apple will release a new version of their phone, and another one about a year after that and will keep doing so for as long as there is money to be made doing so. This is no different from any other manufacturer releasing new versions of their products - it's what they do. Why people ever act surprised when there's a new shiny version of 'X' has got to be one of life's great mysteries.
Next years surprise, Ford releases the 2015 model of the Focus! Shocking! Who could ever see that coming? What do you mean the entire industry does this every single year?
Your professional conference was there to serve a variety of people in a variety of contexts. If you think that technology is not used to the tune of billions of dollars in commerce every year in connection to sex than you are missing out on of the largest market segments out there. They didn't have dancing go-go girls on stage, they were demonstrating their technology at a technology conference.
The idea of morally policing where technology can be associated with sex up to parents and isn't the place of a professional development conference. The better question is why is a 9 year old girl at a professional development conference? If this conference is like most the schedule and contents were posted ahead of time and the parents of said 9 year old girl could have looked it up and easily avoided exposing the girl to the presentation.
The idea that an entire professional conference must be run by the nanny police to avoid offending a 9 year old girl at the expense of one of their largest customers reeks of someone wanting to be offended.
Phones are connected to networks. Government agencies by definition have the ability to issue warrants to get the network provider to turn over all data that passes through their network. Every government on the planet does this and has since the invention of the telephone. It's called a wiretap and the logic was extended for text and other data.
The network provider owns the network. Through the use of warrants the government owns the network provider. When you own the network you own all of the data going over it. With devices that perform MITM on the fly your encryption is useless unless you exchanged the key offline ahead of time. These devices have been sold for government and corporate use for many years.
The idea that anyone has ever had privacy on their mobile is a myth that has never had any basis in reality. You want a secure phone that your favorite government bad guy can't get into? Go to the store, buy your favorite phone and leave it in the package.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't begin to imagine how many people I've worked with over the years that have only worked somewhere because of the health benefits. Make the health benefits no longer an issue and you gain better competition in the market for where people can work. Remove the barrier and all of a sudden a lot of places that previously would not have attracted enterprise class talent open up.
The fact that some of these places are starts ups is largely incidental. Think of it this way, something like 40% of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Why? Because they were hardworking and didn't have anything holding them back.
I know I've turned down employment opportunities for a lack of viable health insurance for my family, I have to imagine that I'm far from the only one. What happens when people are no longer held back by this very practical concern and can go for broke like the immigrant entrepreneur?
Look, if your in a first world country this kind of thing has a great deal of meaning as labor costs are high, safety means something and nobody wants to take an asset out of service. However in the real world the vast majority of ships fly a flag of convenience from a country like Panama and maintenance is the absolute minimum possible as those countries give safety and other concerns lip service only.
It's why ships crews can work out of places like the US for cruises but completely ignore things like labor laws. Think of a ship (not boat) that doesn't belong to a countries navy, now google that ship and look for the flag it's flying. Chances are /really/ good that flag has nothing to do with the country it operates out of.
Companies like Carnival could easily resolve their ship stranding issues by adopting maintenance standards used in other countries, but that costs money and they don't want to spend that. As long as they can pass the safety inspection to dock that is all they care about. Why do you think older ships get renamed and sold after every 10 years? After about 30 years that once glamorous cruise ship, might cargo ship, oil tanker or whatever will simply end up being broken on a beach in India because it's cheaper.
Your talking about an industry that has spent centuries learning how to take advantage of international differences in law to avoid spending money on labor. Before that? There were no regulations requiring it to begin with. These kinds of companies aren't going to dry dock their ships unless they really absolutely have to, and then they'd probably rather sell the ship.
However you are wrong. In the eyes of Wall Street it is perfectly fair to have programs that scan announcements, look for key words and make trades based on what is contained.
Wall Street hires very good developers, uses customs Asics, has the lowest latency that they can to their servers and so on. The key here being that anyone can do these things and therefore the SEC considers that it is fair. The results are that you end up with trading algorithms betting against other trading algorithms.
In this particular case they got caught out because of the time differential on the announcement. It sounds like someone had insider information and told their systems to act milliseconds before anyone else. Unfortunately for them things are so closely scrutinized that those milliseconds were noticed and it will be pretty damn hard to deny having insider knowledge. The likely end result is that someone will be going to prison.
The next scoundrel will get their timing down just right to avoid making it as obvious. The risk of course is that everyone else has their automated system into play and if you get it wrong you lose instead of win. It's a numbers game where latency is taken much more seriously than by the gaming crowd and the timing sequences are quite well known by the players in the game.
Which is why in applications that have nothing to do with non-profit youth based organizations the BSA doesn't do anything. You'll find the word Scout used from Navigation systems to International off road vehicles. It is the context of the word that makes all the difference in the world.
It's how Apple got away with ripping off their name from Apple records (Beetles publishing company). They didn't have any notable legal issues over the matter until they went into the business of selling music. For the same reason you could safely make a car called the "Apple" but you would be sued without hesitation if you tried doing anything in the computer industry with the name of "Apple".
This is a horrible idea, let's start with how credit worked in the old days. You got a house loan or car loan by paying 1/3 the cost up front. You also paid off your credit on terms that were much shorter than today's terms. I don't know about you, but outside the rich or someone that has been saving for many years that is simply no longer feasible in today's society. Simply put, only the rich could afford to get credit if we adopted the old standards.
Your also forgetting other reasons that people went to numbers such as racism, religious based discrimination and so on. When you had everything done by having someone approve the loan by who they knew the result was that people that were in better favor with the banker were more likely to be approved. In many towns if you were a protestant or a catholic you simply couldn't get credit in that town, or you had to go your bank. If you weren't a member of either church in good standing than you certainly weren't getting a loan.
Problems with this kind of behavior became so bad that it became known as redlining. Bankers would literally draw a line around certain neighborhoods on a map with a red line. If you lived in that neighborhood you either couldn't get credit or had to pay a lot more for it.
Many lawsuits were filed and banks lost badly in days gone by over these practices and the modern credit system was in large part derived as a result of them. Nowadays the person approving your loan is someone you don't know, probably doesn't live in the same state as you and who tries to look at you abstractly - as a number - for the express purpose of ensuring that discrimination doesn't occur.
All that being said, the idea that people should rely less on debt is one I agree with, but you have obviously never worked in credit.
My experience is pretty much entirely large enterprise, which means working in environments such as you describe. As you said you 3124 active SSL connections. Start by filtering out which ones are going to sites you know are legitimate. That should filter a fair amount right there, than you start filtering out those connections that are external.
Once you have filtered out the destination ranges for the known good sessions you have a far smaller set of SSL connections to investigate. Look at the source and destination IP addresses of those that remain and start finding out who they belong to and start building a white list.
There may be a very legitimate reason to have an SSL session setup with Estonia (I've seen some great programmers work from there) or not. The point is that you treat SSL connections just like you would firewall ports. What's your destination, source and what are you using it for? The entire idea is to look for SSL connections from servers that you don't already know about. You don't want to investigate all of them, just the new ones that pop that aren't on the change management white-list.
I don't mean to make this sound trivial, it's not, but the process itself is fairly easy. Your working for a large enterprise by the sounds of it, chances are your on a team with a number of security people available and enterprise class resources. It's really just a matter of doing the legwork to run things down. Now if you don't have any kind of change management in place and have to chase down all 3124 connections to find out who's doing what it's no longer easy, but that is an entirely different story.
This should have been easy to catch with their IPS. Why is their an encrypted data stream going from a server to a server outside the organization? Even without using an SSL decryption device to look at the contents of the stream, the mere fact that an encrypted stream of data was going to an unauthorized destination should have set off alarm bells by it's own right.
I've seen any number of environments that simply blocked encrypted data sessions until they had been white-listed. It's something that ought to be in your change management system along with all of your other firewall rules. The fact that a major credit agency got owned by this tells me that they probably outsourced their security to India along with the rest of their staff.
People die every single day, 107 people die every single minute of every single day. Earthquakes also happen fairly routinely in certain parts of the world. When they are large they are covered by the news, in particular their death tolls are well covered to the point many are saturated.
I understand you may not care for what I say, but just try to get the TV or major newspaper to cover an average person who died in an average way after they have died. The bottom line is that people simply don't care about people they don't know - it's not newsworthy. Death only becomes newsworthy when the person is (in)famous or dies in a notable way.
However the creation of a new island from an earthquake if far from an everyday occurrence. It is also notably something that strikes a scientific bell with a community that generally has at least a token interest in science.
Myst sold incredibly well because it was a novelty and people had never experienced something like it before. Unfortunately it lacked anything to retain people's attention. Sure it had puzzles, but the puzzles weren't part of the environment, and puzzles could be solved with cheap games that didn't require the then expensive hardware. Myst lacked anything that would lock you into engaging within the environment itself. The result was that it became nothing more than the pretty picture that may as well have been a background picture.
Because Myst never did take advantage of what it had and as a result the novelty quickly wore off. However other people in the industry quickly realized that what the beautiful scenery needed was guns, swords and zombies. The net result was that you had something to engage your attention in the beautiful scenery and adding pretend violence was the perfect recipe. The result has been years of first person shooters that have all been wildly successful by using open environments, beautiful scenery and violence.
This has been a well known problem for at least a couple of decades. Google had their famous cache that was famous for saving peoples hides or embarrassing peoples mistakes. The people that run the Wayback machine have been fighting this problem for many, many years.
Their is a natural resistance to being able to preserve content as it was at the time. People, companies and governments like to make revisionist history and forget that certain things ever happened or change them after the fact. Specialized companies help with reputation management in ensuring that such things disappear for good.
It's a problem from tech support documentation that disappears to finding old employers that have changed their name and moved location. The only way to resolve the issue is to be able to preserve the content as it was for posterity. Always assume your links will vanish and turn your need pages into archive files. If you really want to do something about it donate to the Internet Archive.
Let's balance this out on our options. Option one is three laws from a Science Fiction author who the three laws and the turned around and wrote multiple books about how they inevitably just couldn't work. Option two involves the real world and keep our service members out of harms way from real missiles and bullets.
Let me think real hard about this, obey three fictional laws parodied by the very person who came up with them or protect real human beings from harm? I know that might sound like a tough choice in a science fiction setting, but in the real world most people value human over machines.
Yes, and that means connecting to other countries infrastructure in the naive assumption that those other countries don't do the same things the US does. Thus the point on North Korea as if you rule out all of the other countries that spy there is no one left to connect to but themselves. Your not really naive enough to think that countries other than the US don't spy, are you?
RTFA, they are also talking about running their own Fiber to Europe and elsewhere. Meanwhile they forget that European governments also heavily engage on spying on the Internet. You did RTFA, right?
Your missing the bloody point. In the zealous desire to make the NSA the world's boogeyman on all things related to computer security the world is forgetting all of the other security issues that is had /before/ the NSA boogeyman.
People are also naively assuming that the NSA is the only agency to go around spying on other countries like that. It only takes a quick google search to reveal spy agencies from just about every nation on earth. Since the Internet is arguably the cheapest and easiest way to gather information for people it is only natural that the same would be true for governments. People forget that governments spy on other governments because - that is their job.
Now you can either get piss and moan about it, or you can do something security in general. Let me explain things to you with your door locking example, it's a bit like putting up a sign banning Bob the burglar while forgetting that you live in a bad neighborhood with thousands of other burglars.
Do it, do it! While your at it make sure you do the same thing for every other country that spies on other countries on the Internet. Don't forget about countries ranging from France to China to Russia and the vast majority that I haven't named. Take your righteous indignation with you, close your borders and don't forget to ask North Korea how being isolated from almost the entire country is is working out. Dead Dear Leader while be very impressed by his converts on the other side of the world that have taken his lessons about self reliance in stride.
I'm sure Iran can give you pointers about having your own country specific version of the Internet (what do you call that - CAN / Country Area Network?)
Meanwhile the rest of the world that hasn't quite gotten around to ordering tinfoil hats by the pallet is realizing that security actually is an issue and that you can't treat it as an afterthought. Instead people are having a wake up call and starting to realize that security has to be designed into things from the beginning, used throughout the /entire/ process and that you have to stop thinking your going to secure your environment by installing a firewall and the latest antivirus suite.
You have two choices, keep playing the NSA boogeyman card whilst everyone else robs you blind, or get your act together and start doing what you should have been doing to begin with. Blaming the worlds computer security problems on the NSA is a bit like blaming Top Gear for death of old Morris Marina's. There really aren't that many flying pianos and pretty soon you've got to realize that's a lot more to the picture.
Thanks for the link
Thanks!
If I wanted to read the science I would, and I have, it's something I have done for the last few decades, which is quite a few years before it was politically correct to do so. That isn't the point though, the point is that "science" isn't supposed to be politically charged, it's supposed to be "science".
Science, and reporting on science should rise about the type of petty hyperbole that I see on infecting many other types of reporting. When I read articles or studies about astronomy they tend to be fairly hyperbole free (unless it's an asteroid with the slightest chance of hitting the earth). The same thing applies when I read about almost any other subject that relates to science.
The point of reporting on science is that a reporter is reading through the studies (which number in the thousands, are quite dry reading and too often pay-walled) and reporting on what is new). This is their job and if I find something of interest that I can go and check out the source.
Now climb down out of your god damn ivory tower and get your nose out of the air back to the real world where the average person does not have the time to spend their day reading studies. Sit down, pause and think about it for just a moment and you just might realize that hyperbole free reporting is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.
What I'd love to see is reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole. I'm reasonably certain that I'm far from the only person that's fed up with having hyperbole rammed down my throat and would really rather just have the actual "science" reported.
Now, I'm not defending the doomsday preppers, I'm rather inclined to think some of them are nuts from what I've seen on TV, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the flu out of hand.
Look, who's the bigger villain, humans with their penchant for turning anything that moves or doesn't move into a ___burger or climate change that is the current boogeyman?
Who knows? Let's face it, any number of factors from volcanoes to natural predators to climate change to caveman barbeques all likely shared guilt. The world isn't black and white and people need to stop thinking of everything as having a singular one dimensional true answer.
Microsoft's policies with the Surface had everything to do with killing RT. They couldn't have better engineered Surface RT to fail if they tried.
Confusing name - identical to a product the same size and shape and not at all the same thing that is released at the same time. WTF?
Inferior screen compared to Surface Pro
Window 8
Missing "Start Menu" being replaced by "Start Button"
No initial boot to desktop
Apps are only available through the market and with a minimum $1.50 charge
No side-loading of apps.
No backwards compatibility
No ability to load anything that isn't approved by Microsoft. All of the disadvantage of Apples walled garden with none of the glamour
Poor CPU choice to begin with
Not enough RAM
Poor heat management
The price was far too high
No ability to join a domain
Can't legally use it for work if you read the license
Metro should have been an option and never a forced interaction
The worst thing of all was that Microsoft blatantly ignored their users feedback about Windows 8!
This arrogance left a bad taste in the mouth of many and word of mouth killed the Surface RT.
Microsoft could have made a killer Surface RT that would have done very well if they hadn't been so arrogant. The attempt to force their "market" and the Metro interface - whatever the consequences killed the Surface. By the time Haswell came out Surface RT was already dead, lost along with a few million missing tablets in a warehouse somewhere.
Apple will release a new version of their phone, and another one about a year after that and will keep doing so for as long as there is money to be made doing so. This is no different from any other manufacturer releasing new versions of their products - it's what they do. Why people ever act surprised when there's a new shiny version of 'X' has got to be one of life's great mysteries.
Next years surprise, Ford releases the 2015 model of the Focus! Shocking! Who could ever see that coming? What do you mean the entire industry does this every single year?
Your professional conference was there to serve a variety of people in a variety of contexts. If you think that technology is not used to the tune of billions of dollars in commerce every year in connection to sex than you are missing out on of the largest market segments out there. They didn't have dancing go-go girls on stage, they were demonstrating their technology at a technology conference.
The idea of morally policing where technology can be associated with sex up to parents and isn't the place of a professional development conference. The better question is why is a 9 year old girl at a professional development conference? If this conference is like most the schedule and contents were posted ahead of time and the parents of said 9 year old girl could have looked it up and easily avoided exposing the girl to the presentation.
The idea that an entire professional conference must be run by the nanny police to avoid offending a 9 year old girl at the expense of one of their largest customers reeks of someone wanting to be offended.
Phones are connected to networks. Government agencies by definition have the ability to issue warrants to get the network provider to turn over all data that passes through their network. Every government on the planet does this and has since the invention of the telephone. It's called a wiretap and the logic was extended for text and other data.
The network provider owns the network. Through the use of warrants the government owns the network provider. When you own the network you own all of the data going over it. With devices that perform MITM on the fly your encryption is useless unless you exchanged the key offline ahead of time. These devices have been sold for government and corporate use for many years.
The idea that anyone has ever had privacy on their mobile is a myth that has never had any basis in reality. You want a secure phone that your favorite government bad guy can't get into? Go to the store, buy your favorite phone and leave it in the package.