We need to build a wall and keep all the females out until they can be throughly vetted. Over 50% of the poeple living in this country are female, did you know that? That's MILLIONS. We have to put a stop to this until we cn figre out WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.
With so many different research approaches to improving batteries, investment in bringing new technology to production scale is often viewed as a hazardous endeavor... there's a pretty good chance the tech you pick will end up getting surpassed by another before financials break even.
Obviously the free market helps foster a spirit of competition, but its brutal Darwinism also serves as a disincentive. Planned market solutions can spread out risk, but also have to be wary of funding completely unworthy endeavors... if everyone working on batteries, win or lose, got a small but guaranteed "compensation prize", lots of people would jump in and claim without merit to be working on batteries. Subdividing the technology so that different phases of a manufacturing process are developed by different entities seems a promising idea for those parts of the technology that may have wider applications or may apply to multiple competing designs -- but that would require a lot of advocacy which just does not seem to be there.
Have you seen any interesting proposals for business/market/public-funding models to address the "too many ways to skin a cat" problem?
Well, I care to the extent that it results in someone who cares more than me derailing the discussion. So in an effort to give said people less of an excuse to do so, I tend to use "they".
More like, I don't need to know your gender, and cannot be arsed to figure it out to exchange information and ideas. Your gender is TLDR in most circumstances... and less safe to assume from names than most people seem to think.
This is because it is impolite to assume that they do not have split personality disorder:-)
(Using "they" never bothered me, personally, as group containers with one member are regularly encountered in IT, and with so many online cohort identities these days, one should assume a singular actor less often. I don't like mixing "they" with singular declention, though.)
Projects might want to learn from this, and start to ask developers if they'd be OK with allowing future project governance to change the license. Not everyone would say OK to that, but it could drastically reuce the number of contributers that need to e contacted.
There are various attack vectors that allow spoofing of those creds without access to the private key.
What such an attacker can't likely do is answer an on-premises phone call from an extended validation CA to get a new cert for the domain in question.
Don't get me wrong -- letsencrypt is a good thing for encouraging at least the possibility of security among those who cannot afford a real CA. But no fully automated system will ever be able to offer better guarantees than a staffed-up CA (not that all staffed-up CAs actually add much value, but some do). Nor are they necessarily less likely to do what Symantec did... an internal actor could issue certs willy nilly. Breakdowns in internal checks and balances in any organization can occur. CAs will succeed or fail based on their ability to prevent them.
Yet supposedly if you read other articles, we are moving towards a crisis where humans find themselves in a highly automated society without enough to do, work-wise.
But then we increasingly have people so desperate for immediate financial gain they'll sacrifice their future, a technocratic wealthy elite more than happy to take the better end of that stick, and a populist movement of people so concerned about losing their jobs they'll sign on to just about any anti-immigrant platform no matter how odious.
And on the flip side, even those who welcome immigrants always add "if you are willing to work really, really hard", not just "work".
It's the overdeveloped puritanical work ethic colliding with technology colliding with economic and resource realities. What a schizophrenic nation we have become.
But rest assured, the basic human need to complain about shit will be fulfilled in abundance.
I might still have a partition sitting somewhere where I played with drive encryption and then forgot the passphrase. Nothing on it but a stock Linux install, but these days you never know when some random baseless accusation is going to fly your way.
I guess we're all legally required to never forgot a drive password now. Feh.
Then again, now any disgruntled tech support guy can sabotage any PHB by just putting an encrypted partition on their desktop. They can tell the judge they didn't know it was there, and don't know the password, but I guess tough luck for them.
I have no conspiracy theory, just a disdain for switch clustering suites. If you're talking about the vendor lock-in point, ask an SE where a standards-based inter-vendor clustering suite is on the company/industry roadmap. It's just a de-facto reality.
I haven't seen many switches lately that have a separate backplane cable for clustering. They all use their uplinks, since it only took vendors a decade or two to get cluster management packets adequately prioritized.
On ease of management I'll give you one more item: if the cluster supports hitless upgrading that's not doable through other means, and if your SLA doesn't leave you any windows that's an attractive feature. So three, three good reasons.
But unless you have only one cluster you're dealing with multiple CLI/SNMP/SDN endpoints anyway, so you might as well start automating, there will only be more over time.
"Stack resiliency" really is only applicable to HPC, and in that case you'll be using #1 from my original list anyway. The MTBF on these things is so low these days that for most purposes you are past the point of diminishing returns on any other level of reliability.
I'd probably say we should be utilizing 20 year old router technology.
That would be a security mistake... a lot of essential security features are younger than that. Heck, there are some switches that old where the only option for administration is through telnet. Switches that old (or new switches not properly configured, or anything in the prosumer market or lower) are pretty much an open killing field for intruders to forge, intercept, and bypass traffic.
The problem with open-sourcing these things is price and operating costs... open designs for the hardware would have to be mass-producible at the same price point as vendors have managed to achieve, and since they handle transit traffic, without open hardware, anything could be in that silicon to inject watermark CnC in packet headers or transmit timing.
So you have to be pretty damn cash-flush to spy-proof your access network... otherwise you just have to hope whoever can own your net doesn't want to and is competent enough to keep the house keys hidden from others that would.
Most switches support ACLs on all services, and/or on switch SVIs (if you don't have prohibitively many of those), and/or CoPP, so you can tell the switch not to talk to anything but your management stations. You just have to set things up so you can alter those ACLs en-masse when needed. No need for a firewall, really, as long as you aren't using ridiculous utilities that do not belong on a switch in the first place.
That said, there's pretty much zero reason to use telnet these days, and even the last vestiges of FTP and TFTP are starting to become unnecessary as more switch facilities are supporting SCP or (sigh) SFTP. Sigh on the latter because you really are putting a lot of trust in the other end of the connection because SFTP subprotocol code is not production quality code, even in the openSSH tree. But at least someone has to actually own the endpoint to get at it.
1) You are using proprietary multichassis bonding 2) You need to make multiple switches look like one for licensing $$ purposes.
And that is about it. Look at any vendor's release notes and a substantial portion of the bugs are in the clustering regime. Just turn that crap off unless you need it... since inductry-wide it's a proprietary lock-in gambit and doesn't have to survive interop shootouts, there's no way the code is worth running otherwise.
Why does making the accurate statement "this map's projection misrepresents the proportion of countries in the northern hemisphere" make someone an SJW liberal with a PC agenda?
Because certain white people are special snowflakes who take everything personally... you can usually tell them apart by how many times they call other individuals snowflakes, since it's a form of projection.
Civilized E Protesting & Uncivilized E Protesting !-> Civilized ^ Protesting != Civilized.
Anyway, it's going to be kinda hard staying happy when the elderly neighbors get taken away on stretchers for lack of preventative care. A tax break ain't gonna be much of a balm for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, the real action is submitting comments at regulations.gov.
e.g. https://www.regulations.gov/do...
We need to build a wall and keep all the females out until they can be throughly vetted. Over 50% of the poeple living in this country are female, did you know that? That's MILLIONS. We have to put a stop to this until we cn figre out WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.
X11 that is. "Creator's Upsate"? Really? Well that name doesn't *sound* very creative. I'm just saiyan (like Goku).
And what privacy rules do VPN providers play by? Are they legally binding? Would they get caught if they didn't follow them?
With so many different research approaches to improving batteries, investment in bringing new technology to production scale is often viewed as a hazardous endeavor... there's a pretty good chance the tech you pick will end up getting surpassed by another before financials break even.
Obviously the free market helps foster a spirit of competition, but its brutal Darwinism also serves as a disincentive. Planned market solutions can spread out risk, but also have to be wary of funding completely unworthy endeavors... if everyone working on batteries, win or lose, got a small but guaranteed "compensation prize", lots of people would jump in and claim without merit to be working on batteries. Subdividing the technology so that different phases of a manufacturing process are developed by different entities seems a promising idea for those parts of the technology that may have wider applications or may apply to multiple competing designs -- but that would require a lot of advocacy which just does not seem to be there.
Have you seen any interesting proposals for business/market/public-funding models to address the "too many ways to skin a cat" problem?
Haven't you seen the Hunger Games? By fashion sense, of course.
Oh damn.... I'm doomed.
Some person started yelling at me in olde english the other day. I have no idea what one wanted.
Well, I care to the extent that it results in someone who cares more than me derailing the discussion. So in an effort to give said people less of an excuse to do so, I tend to use "they".
Nah, "their" doesn't require hitting shift. I'll keep using that.
More like, I don't need to know your gender, and cannot be arsed to figure it out to exchange information and ideas. Your gender is TLDR in most circumstances... and less safe to assume from names than most people seem to think.
This is because it is impolite to assume that they do not have split personality disorder :-)
(Using "they" never bothered me, personally, as group containers with one member are regularly
encountered in IT, and with so many online cohort identities these days, one should assume a singular
actor less often. I don't like mixing "they" with singular declention, though.)
Projects might want to learn from this, and start to ask developers if they'd be OK with allowing future project governance to change the license. Not everyone would say OK to that, but it could drastically reuce the number of contributers that need to e contacted.
There are various attack vectors that allow spoofing of those creds without access to the private key.
What such an attacker can't likely do is answer an on-premises phone call from an extended validation CA to get a new cert for the domain in question.
Don't get me wrong -- letsencrypt is a good thing for encouraging at least the possibility of security among those who cannot afford a real CA. But no fully automated system will ever be able to offer better guarantees than a staffed-up CA (not that all staffed-up CAs actually add much value, but some do). Nor are they necessarily less likely to do what Symantec did... an internal actor could issue certs willy nilly. Breakdowns in internal checks and balances in any organization can occur. CAs will succeed or fail based on their ability to prevent them.
You know it's a good cert because only the person in control of the domain could get it.
...or anyone p0wning enough of their services at any particular time.
Yet supposedly if you read other articles, we are moving towards a crisis where humans find themselves in a highly automated society without enough to do, work-wise.
But then we increasingly have people so desperate for immediate financial gain they'll sacrifice their future, a technocratic wealthy elite more than happy to take the better end of that stick, and a populist movement of people so concerned about losing their jobs they'll sign on to just about any anti-immigrant platform no matter how odious.
And on the flip side, even those who welcome immigrants always add "if you are willing to work really, really hard", not just "work".
It's the overdeveloped puritanical work ethic colliding with technology colliding with economic and resource realities. What a schizophrenic nation we have become.
But rest assured, the basic human need to complain about shit will be fulfilled in abundance.
Well, electric motors are unlikely to run very well on jet fuel, and a generator would take up weight.
But, if they only took passengers on outbound flights, they might be able to limp back on less battery packs than they went out with.
Damn "cold sore". Now I can't get into my account. Musta mouthed too many passwords.
I might still have a partition sitting somewhere where I played with drive encryption and then forgot the passphrase. Nothing on it but a stock Linux install, but these days you never know when some random baseless accusation is going to fly your way.
I guess we're all legally required to never forgot a drive password now. Feh.
Then again, now any disgruntled tech support guy can sabotage any PHB by just putting an encrypted partition on their desktop. They can tell the judge they didn't know it was there, and don't know the password, but I guess tough luck for them.
I have no conspiracy theory, just a disdain for switch clustering suites. If you're talking about the vendor lock-in point, ask an SE where a standards-based inter-vendor clustering suite is on the company/industry roadmap. It's just a de-facto reality.
I haven't seen many switches lately that have a separate backplane cable for clustering. They all use their uplinks, since it only took vendors a decade or two to get cluster management packets adequately prioritized.
On ease of management I'll give you one more item: if the cluster supports hitless upgrading that's not doable through other means, and if your SLA doesn't leave you any windows that's an attractive feature. So three, three good reasons.
But unless you have only one cluster you're dealing with multiple CLI/SNMP/SDN endpoints anyway, so you might as well start automating, there will only be more over time.
"Stack resiliency" really is only applicable to HPC, and in that case you'll be using #1 from my original list anyway. The MTBF on these things is so low these days that for most purposes you are past the point of diminishing returns on any other level of reliability.
I'd probably say we should be utilizing 20 year old router technology.
That would be a security mistake... a lot of essential security features are younger than that. Heck, there are some switches that old where the only option for administration is through telnet. Switches that old (or new switches not properly configured, or anything in the prosumer market or lower) are pretty much an open killing field for intruders to forge, intercept, and bypass traffic.
The problem with open-sourcing these things is price and operating costs... open designs for the hardware would have to be mass-producible at the same price point as vendors have managed to achieve, and since they handle transit traffic, without open hardware, anything could be in that silicon to inject watermark CnC in packet headers or transmit timing.
So you have to be pretty damn cash-flush to spy-proof your access network... otherwise you just have to hope whoever can own your net doesn't want to and is competent enough to keep the house keys hidden from others that would.
Most switches support ACLs on all services, and/or on switch SVIs (if you don't have prohibitively many of those), and/or CoPP, so you can tell the switch not to talk to anything but your management stations. You just have to set things up so you can alter those ACLs en-masse when needed. No need for a firewall, really, as long as you aren't using ridiculous utilities that do not belong on a switch in the first place.
That said, there's pretty much zero reason to use telnet these days, and even the last vestiges of FTP and TFTP are starting to become unnecessary as more switch facilities are supporting SCP or (sigh) SFTP. Sigh on the latter because you really are putting a lot of trust in the other end of the connection because SFTP subprotocol code is not production quality code, even in the openSSH tree. But at least someone has to actually own the endpoint to get at it.
1) You are using proprietary multichassis bonding
2) You need to make multiple switches look like one for licensing $$ purposes.
And that is about it. Look at any vendor's release notes and a substantial portion of the bugs are in the clustering regime. Just turn that crap off unless you need it... since inductry-wide it's a proprietary lock-in gambit and doesn't have to survive interop shootouts, there's no way the code is worth running otherwise.
Why does making the accurate statement "this map's projection misrepresents the proportion of countries in the northern hemisphere" make someone an SJW liberal with a PC agenda?
Because certain white people are special snowflakes who take everything personally... you can usually tell them apart by how many times they call other individuals snowflakes, since it's a form of projection.
I have to admit, even though I've seen that projection before, it still always surprises me Australia is as big as it is.
Civilized E Protesting & Uncivilized E Protesting !-> Civilized ^ Protesting != Civilized.
Anyway, it's going to be kinda hard staying happy when the elderly neighbors get taken away on stretchers for lack of preventative care. A tax break ain't gonna be much of a balm for that.