This is exactly the problem. It should NOT be up to the sysadmins, the sysadmins do not own the systems (though many like to pretend they do). Take the Equifax example: when that happened everyone was demanding that the COMPANY must be held responsible. But how can the COMPANY be held responsible if the sysadmins are the only ones who know what is on the systems?
You completely missed the point of the article. The article has nothing to do with whether or not open source is 'better or worse' or 'riskier or safer' than closed source. It is about companies knowing what software they are using (or distributing). To take your Equifax example: if Equifax has no policy about obtaining open source software, how is the CIO supposed to know that Joe Developer decided to use Struts? And if he doesn't know what they are using and where, how is he supposed to make sure vulnerabilities are patched?
On the other hand, if Struts was not open source and they used it, someone would have to submit a purchase order to obtain it, and that probably triggers various approvals (including the CIO), and they would have a proper inventory of their software.
Did you read the article? Or even the summary? They are not claiming that open source is riskier than closed source. They are saying that companies that have no policy on the use of open-source software may be running (or distributing) software they are not even aware of. So when someone in charge of security sees that XYZ has a vulnerability, he may not know that they are affected. On the other hand, closed-source software generally requires approvals, money, licenses, etc, so the company is at least aware of the use of the software.
Most, if not all, mandatory radon inspections are only mandatory because the lender wants it. There are, as far as I know, no laws requiring radon inspection. The lender wants the inspections because even the appearance of a problem can drastically lower the property value.
You mean inside a VM that just happens to have a real (not emulated) disk dedicated to it, and with user priviliges that allow direct access to said disk (IOW, root), right? And with both guest and host being very lightly loaded so little details like task switches don't complely hose your timing.
It is not reading 'a file'. It is reading the DISK. In any sane setup, and especially on servers, regular users can not access the disk. It is in no way a 'low privilege operation'.
Yeah, and the very first thing that code does is open/dev/sda in read mode. How poorly must you have your system configured that a regular user can do that?
You think there is no price competition in gasoline? Where do you live? Gasoline retailing is one of the most price-competitive markets there is, with razor-thin margins. It is why gas stations all have mini-marts, carwashes, or something else they can actually make a profit on.
In fact, this intense price pressure is exactly why gas prices tend to rise an fall in sync.
No, the effect is not the same. If they were colluding, the 7-11 would not have started selling gas at $1/gal, thereby forcing Arco to do the same. If they were colluding the price would not drop.
I don't know where you got your definition of the cancer death rate, but it is not what they used. They looked at how many deaths from breast cancer there were per 100,000 women (NOT per 100,000 women with breast cancer). That number is 40% lower than it was. I don't know how you can spin that as 'unimpressive'. It doesn't matter if the decrease is because of better treatment, or early detection, or simply not getting breast cancer in the first place (which of course would be the ideal).
It doesn't appear that they are talking about a 40% improved survival rate for diagnosed cases. They are looking at deaths caused by brreast cancer in the general population, and that rate is 40% lower than it was.
I am aware that Maps continuously updates. When I am talking about alternate routes, I am not talking about getting off the highway onto some surface street for a few miles. I am talking about avoiding the problem areas in the first place. In the case I mentioned, we were northbound on the NJ turnpike (I95) heading towards the NYS thruway (I87). Google's suggested route was stay on I-95 all the way to I-80, take I-80 to NJ17, and take that to I-87. Even without the Jets game in the mix, it doesn't take much thinking to realize that is an awful route. You are heading inbound to NYC, on a Sunday afternoon when everyone is returning from the weekend. It is an extremely congested area. Even when traffic is moving fast it is stressful driving, and traffic is likely to come to a screeching halt at any moment. Yeah, when that happens Maps will helpfully route you through Newark or something. Great.
However, if you actually look at a map, you can see that they helpfully built I-287 which steers far clear of NYC, and you can avoid the whole mess. It is slightly longer. The time to make that decision is about 30 miles before you get into the congested area, and Maps doesn't help you with that at all.
For another example, use Maps to get a route from Albany, NY to Orlando, FL. It gives two choices, fly, or I-95. I-95 takes you very close to NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC. Those are some of the worst areas for traffic in the country. However, if you can read a map you can see that there is an alternate route that is slightly longer that avoids ALL of those cities - I87,I287,I78,I81,I77,I26,I95. The time to make that decision is at the NY/NJ border at Mahwah, not when Maps notices it is now rush hour in DC and you are in it.
Google Maps does not tell you where there will be a traffic jam, it tells you where there IS a traffic jam. Unless you are either IN the jam (in which case it is too late) or VERY close to the jam, that information is near useless.
Just yesterday, on a long trip with friends, I had two experiences with Google Maps. First, my friend is driving on a 4-lane highway, and traffic comes to a stop. I look at Maps, and it shows the problem is construction about a mile ahead. But Maps helpfully suggests an alternate route. This 'alternate route' was a single-lane windy road, that ended at the intersection of another 4-lane highway. It doesn't take much sense to know that if a bunch of people follow that route (and it was clear that they were), that road is going to get VERY backed up at that intersection. Decided to stay on the original route, and was through it in about 10 minutes. By the time we made it through, the ALTERNATE route was solid red. Those poor suckers were stuck in that mess for at least a half hour.
Second situation - farther along we are about 2 hours from home, and everyone is getting tired. I am now driving, and my friend asks me how I plan to go. I tell him the route I usually take. He says Maps says it is 10 minutes quicker to go another way. A few seconds of discussion and we realize that the suggested route is going to go right past an NFL stadium, and we should arrive at that point about 1/2 hour after the game ends. No thanks! We looked at Maps later, at about the time we would be there, and it was one solid mass of red, nobody was going anywhere.
The only thing I find GPS and Maps good for is pinpointing a location. The actual routes they choose are seldom what I would call the best routes (for instance, I think it is worth a few extra minutes to go on a route that has lower stress than a fast-but-insane-traffic route).
What is that even supposed to mean? The FDIC doesn't protect the bank against anything, it protects you in case your bank becomes insolvent. It does not protect you or the bank from fraud, robberies, or anything else.
Yes, and we have tunnels with much larger cross section than the hyperloop, with more external pressure, and they manage to not implode. Natural gas pipelines are up to 48 inches diameter. This would be about twice that. Gas lines have about 15x the pressure.
They aren't there 'to prevent collapsing under their own dead weight'. They are there to prevent damage during trucking, craning into position, etc, Nice scare tactic though.
Uh, no. 15 PSI is 15 PSI. It doesn't matter how you 'scale' something, 15 PSI is still 15 PSI. So to do your scaling experiment, you must ALSO scale up the pressure. So if you are multiplying the diameter by 10, and mulitplying the thickness by 10, you must also multiply the pressure by 10. So instead of 15PSI, you have 150PSI. That may indeed crush the equivalent thickness of pipe. But the actual pressure won't be 150PSI, it will be 15PSI.
Are you people all unaware that we have things like tunnels, submarines, etc that routinely have MANY times as much pressure on them, and in many cases are much larger than a hyperloop tube? Also industrial processes where a low-pressure tube is inside a high-pressure system?
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the problem. It should NOT be up to the sysadmins, the sysadmins do not own the systems (though many like to pretend they do). Take the Equifax example: when that happened everyone was demanding that the COMPANY must be held responsible. But how can the COMPANY be held responsible if the sysadmins are the only ones who know what is on the systems?
You completely missed the point of the article. The article has nothing to do with whether or not open source is 'better or worse' or 'riskier or safer' than closed source. It is about companies knowing what software they are using (or distributing). To take your Equifax example: if Equifax has no policy about obtaining open source software, how is the CIO supposed to know that Joe Developer decided to use Struts? And if he doesn't know what they are using and where, how is he supposed to make sure vulnerabilities are patched?
On the other hand, if Struts was not open source and they used it, someone would have to submit a purchase order to obtain it, and that probably triggers various approvals (including the CIO), and they would have a proper inventory of their software.
If you think the same problem exists in closed source, you clearly did not read the article (or summary).
Did you read the article? Or even the summary? They are not claiming that open source is riskier than closed source. They are saying that companies that have no policy on the use of open-source software may be running (or distributing) software they are not even aware of. So when someone in charge of security sees that XYZ has a vulnerability, he may not know that they are affected. On the other hand, closed-source software generally requires approvals, money, licenses, etc, so the company is at least aware of the use of the software.
Most, if not all, mandatory radon inspections are only mandatory because the lender wants it. There are, as far as I know, no laws requiring radon inspection. The lender wants the inspections because even the appearance of a problem can drastically lower the property value.
You mean inside a VM that just happens to have a real (not emulated) disk dedicated to it, and with user priviliges that allow direct access to said disk (IOW, root), right? And with both guest and host being very lightly loaded so little details like task switches don't complely hose your timing.
It is not reading 'a file'. It is reading the DISK. In any sane setup, and especially on servers, regular users can not access the disk. It is in no way a 'low privilege operation'.
Yeah, and the very first thing that code does is open /dev/sda in read mode. How poorly must you have your system configured that a regular user can do that?
You think there is no price competition in gasoline? Where do you live? Gasoline retailing is one of the most price-competitive markets there is, with razor-thin margins. It is why gas stations all have mini-marts, carwashes, or something else they can actually make a profit on.
In fact, this intense price pressure is exactly why gas prices tend to rise an fall in sync.
No, the effect is not the same. If they were colluding, the 7-11 would not have started selling gas at $1/gal, thereby forcing Arco to do the same. If they were colluding the price would not drop.
IBMers have won the Nobel prize 4 times already. Of course, they do real research.
It doesn't need to exist. They just copied the wrong field when they saved the hint.
I don't know where you got your definition of the cancer death rate, but it is not what they used. They looked at how many deaths from breast cancer there were per 100,000 women (NOT per 100,000 women with breast cancer). That number is 40% lower than it was. I don't know how you can spin that as 'unimpressive'. It doesn't matter if the decrease is because of better treatment, or early detection, or simply not getting breast cancer in the first place (which of course would be the ideal).
It doesn't appear that they are talking about a 40% improved survival rate for diagnosed cases. They are looking at deaths caused by brreast cancer in the general population, and that rate is 40% lower than it was.
I am aware that Maps continuously updates. When I am talking about alternate routes, I am not talking about getting off the highway onto some surface street for a few miles. I am talking about avoiding the problem areas in the first place. In the case I mentioned, we were northbound on the NJ turnpike (I95) heading towards the NYS thruway (I87). Google's suggested route was stay on I-95 all the way to I-80, take I-80 to NJ17, and take that to I-87. Even without the Jets game in the mix, it doesn't take much thinking to realize that is an awful route. You are heading inbound to NYC, on a Sunday afternoon when everyone is returning from the weekend. It is an extremely congested area. Even when traffic is moving fast it is stressful driving, and traffic is likely to come to a screeching halt at any moment. Yeah, when that happens Maps will helpfully route you through Newark or something. Great.
However, if you actually look at a map, you can see that they helpfully built I-287 which steers far clear of NYC, and you can avoid the whole mess. It is slightly longer. The time to make that decision is about 30 miles before you get into the congested area, and Maps doesn't help you with that at all.
For another example, use Maps to get a route from Albany, NY to Orlando, FL. It gives two choices, fly, or I-95. I-95 takes you very close to NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC. Those are some of the worst areas for traffic in the country. However, if you can read a map you can see that there is an alternate route that is slightly longer that avoids ALL of those cities - I87,I287,I78,I81,I77,I26,I95. The time to make that decision is at the NY/NJ border at Mahwah, not when Maps notices it is now rush hour in DC and you are in it.
Google Maps does not tell you where there will be a traffic jam, it tells you where there IS a traffic jam. Unless you are either IN the jam (in which case it is too late) or VERY close to the jam, that information is near useless.
Just yesterday, on a long trip with friends, I had two experiences with Google Maps. First, my friend is driving on a 4-lane highway, and traffic comes to a stop. I look at Maps, and it shows the problem is construction about a mile ahead. But Maps helpfully suggests an alternate route. This 'alternate route' was a single-lane windy road, that ended at the intersection of another 4-lane highway. It doesn't take much sense to know that if a bunch of people follow that route (and it was clear that they were), that road is going to get VERY backed up at that intersection. Decided to stay on the original route, and was through it in about 10 minutes. By the time we made it through, the ALTERNATE route was solid red. Those poor suckers were stuck in that mess for at least a half hour.
Second situation - farther along we are about 2 hours from home, and everyone is getting tired. I am now driving, and my friend asks me how I plan to go. I tell him the route I usually take. He says Maps says it is 10 minutes quicker to go another way. A few seconds of discussion and we realize that the suggested route is going to go right past an NFL stadium, and we should arrive at that point about 1/2 hour after the game ends. No thanks! We looked at Maps later, at about the time we would be there, and it was one solid mass of red, nobody was going anywhere.
The only thing I find GPS and Maps good for is pinpointing a location. The actual routes they choose are seldom what I would call the best routes (for instance, I think it is worth a few extra minutes to go on a route that has lower stress than a fast-but-insane-traffic route).
Pretty much the first test of any civil lawsuit is whether there was any harm. If you can't demonstrate that, there is no case.
Lawsuits are for righting wrongs. If you can't show anyone was wronged, then there is nothing to right.
Protecting people in aggregate is what statutes are for, and neither the FTC nor the judge can create a statute.
The judge ruled correctly.
Which doesn't answer the question, which was if 'turning off' the radio doesn't actually do that, what is the point of 'turning off' the radio.
What is that even supposed to mean? The FDIC doesn't protect the bank against anything, it protects you in case your bank becomes insolvent. It does not protect you or the bank from fraud, robberies, or anything else.
Yes, and we have tunnels with much larger cross section than the hyperloop, with more external pressure, and they manage to not implode. Natural gas pipelines are up to 48 inches diameter. This would be about twice that. Gas lines have about 15x the pressure.
They aren't there 'to prevent collapsing under their own dead weight'. They are there to prevent damage during trucking, craning into position, etc, Nice scare tactic though.
Uh, no. 15 PSI is 15 PSI. It doesn't matter how you 'scale' something, 15 PSI is still 15 PSI. So to do your scaling experiment, you must ALSO scale up the pressure. So if you are multiplying the diameter by 10, and mulitplying the thickness by 10, you must also multiply the pressure by 10. So instead of 15PSI, you have 150PSI. That may indeed crush the equivalent thickness of pipe. But the actual pressure won't be 150PSI, it will be 15PSI.
Are you people all unaware that we have things like tunnels, submarines, etc that routinely have MANY times as much pressure on them, and in many cases are much larger than a hyperloop tube? Also industrial processes where a low-pressure tube is inside a high-pressure system?
Your ignorance of physics is astounding. The LENGTH of the tube does not matter in the slightest.
Have you ever heard of a tunnel? They handle FAR greater pressure differentials than this, and somehow manage to not collapse.
You've never heard of a brake?