Specific details aside, these are all things the US government has done. Would you say the US government is eager to make war more likely? There are many people in the world who would agree with that.
"some of the biggest names in tech" turned out to be three. And big is a bit subjective. I never heard of "Om Malik, a partner at True Ventures and the founder of tech site GigaOm" before, and I only know the third guy since he is the Craig in Craig's list.
When I read "doing so while fully understanding the risk" I thought, where is the paradox? We make decisions like this all the time. There risk in simply getting up in the morning.
Not much of a surprise, we see this sort of thing with any widely reported issue with a specific product. History is rife with examples of mass hysteria, combined with users/owners trying to blame their mistakes on the manufacturer.
My education in physics is limited, maybe you could attempt to clarify why the classical channel is required? I thought that once the two ends were entangled they would reflect each others state without any intervening communication.
Don't forget device firmware alterations, especially on storage drives. But my point was, finding out that you have already been compromised for years is better than never knowing. At least you have a chance to recover something.
Grammar nazi strikes: your use of the comma indicates the box is wearing lasers. Or maybe that is what you meant. It might be smart to have both the box and the sharks wearing lasers, as long as they could not be fooled into lasing each other.
It's not idiots. It is just regular people. I've seen people who forward scam emails to the security team religiously fall for a fake email once in a while. On a bad day, just back from vacation with thousands of emails piled up, and they just happen to be expecting a package. The typical tale I hear is something like 'I knew right away I should not have opened it. But...' I've even come close a couple time and I protect against this sort of thing for a living.
The advantage of AV is it will eventually catch the malware, unless you wipe and reinstall. Sure, it might have been on there for years but eventually you will get it. That's a little better at least than never catching it at all.
In other words, they would argue they don't need to take security seriously because there isn't a serious threat. The rich uncle is a good example of a somewhat realistic situation, but I don't agree that it would set off any flood of concern. Probably very few would care, except maybe the uncle's other relatives. But settling that lawsuit later is a lot cheaper than implementing a lot of security now. Remember, there are lots of ways to kill someone with few or no traces, as long as there is no other evidence. In the uncle's case, the murderous heir would be the prime suspect if there were any whiff of foul play and would leave other evidence like browser search history. Not that the crime couldn't happen, it would just be pretty rare. Is that enough to change the economic calculus for the medical device company?
Or look at it this way. If the murder is undetected, the device company isn't in trouble and has no reason to add security. If the murder is detected, the criminal is convicted and others are deterred from using the same methods. The crime gets added to the list of all the other solved murders which used candlesticks in the library and such. Either way, the medical device company has no motivation to change anything.
You are right, I stand corrected. I thought that the converted cell would revert back to the raw data if the column type was changed, or if one exported as CSV. A little testing shows I was wrong.
Yes! My thought on the article was, what is the problem? It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type. This is just a display problem, not even a conversion problem. If someone is taking the data into some other tool it will be correct.
That is an awesome example, thank you. It also illustrates my vaguely hinted at point that a large centralized agency isn't flexible enough to make good decisions. At the scale of New Zealand, you example shows how a change in circumstances can't be effectively adapted to. Imagine how much worse it is at a global scale.
I would think locating poverty isn't the problem. Do we really not know where the poor people are? The article is all about some huge international agency making a determination where best to send aid. I'll go out on a limb and say satellite imagery isn't going to make any of those more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Specific details aside, these are all things the US government has done. Would you say the US government is eager to make war more likely? There are many people in the world who would agree with that.
I am becoming afraid. It looks more and more like Zechariah Sitchin was right.
"Two kids in their dorm room cannot do anything interesting in space."
What if their dorm room is in space? Then the possibilities are endless.
"some of the biggest names in tech" turned out to be three. And big is a bit subjective. I never heard of "Om Malik, a partner at True Ventures and the founder of tech site GigaOm" before, and I only know the third guy since he is the Craig in Craig's list.
Not sure why they have the digression into the non-observable universe. The 90% refers to the observable universe only.
I've had the same sort of reaction to erythritol, which I suppose is pretty similar.
It's half Soylent Green, half Soylent Red
When I read "doing so while fully understanding the risk" I thought, where is the paradox? We make decisions like this all the time. There risk in simply getting up in the morning.
Not much of a surprise, we see this sort of thing with any widely reported issue with a specific product. History is rife with examples of mass hysteria, combined with users/owners trying to blame their mistakes on the manufacturer.
Ah I see, thanks for that information.
This is good news for all of us who feared the health insurers would try to incentive us to wear tracking devices in exchange for lower premiums.
Of course, the study participants were self-selecting.
AH never mind , NOW I find the explanation posted later.
My education in physics is limited, maybe you could attempt to clarify why the classical channel is required? I thought that once the two ends were entangled they would reflect each others state without any intervening communication.
I would expect every ad delivery platform to have the same goal, at least in theory.
Don't forget device firmware alterations, especially on storage drives. But my point was, finding out that you have already been compromised for years is better than never knowing. At least you have a chance to recover something.
Grammar nazi strikes: your use of the comma indicates the box is wearing lasers. Or maybe that is what you meant. It might be smart to have both the box and the sharks wearing lasers, as long as they could not be fooled into lasing each other.
It's not idiots. It is just regular people. I've seen people who forward scam emails to the security team religiously fall for a fake email once in a while. On a bad day, just back from vacation with thousands of emails piled up, and they just happen to be expecting a package. The typical tale I hear is something like 'I knew right away I should not have opened it. But...' I've even come close a couple time and I protect against this sort of thing for a living.
The advantage of AV is it will eventually catch the malware, unless you wipe and reinstall. Sure, it might have been on there for years but eventually you will get it. That's a little better at least than never catching it at all.
When you have circa 90 minutes to tell a story, you pretty much have to resort to stereotypes or else spend all your limited time on exposition.
In other words, they would argue they don't need to take security seriously because there isn't a serious threat. The rich uncle is a good example of a somewhat realistic situation, but I don't agree that it would set off any flood of concern. Probably very few would care, except maybe the uncle's other relatives. But settling that lawsuit later is a lot cheaper than implementing a lot of security now. Remember, there are lots of ways to kill someone with few or no traces, as long as there is no other evidence. In the uncle's case, the murderous heir would be the prime suspect if there were any whiff of foul play and would leave other evidence like browser search history. Not that the crime couldn't happen, it would just be pretty rare. Is that enough to change the economic calculus for the medical device company?
Or look at it this way. If the murder is undetected, the device company isn't in trouble and has no reason to add security. If the murder is detected, the criminal is convicted and others are deterred from using the same methods. The crime gets added to the list of all the other solved murders which used candlesticks in the library and such. Either way, the medical device company has no motivation to change anything.
You are right, I stand corrected. I thought that the converted cell would revert back to the raw data if the column type was changed, or if one exported as CSV. A little testing shows I was wrong.
Yes! My thought on the article was, what is the problem? It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type. This is just a display problem, not even a conversion problem. If someone is taking the data into some other tool it will be correct.
That is an awesome example, thank you. It also illustrates my vaguely hinted at point that a large centralized agency isn't flexible enough to make good decisions. At the scale of New Zealand, you example shows how a change in circumstances can't be effectively adapted to. Imagine how much worse it is at a global scale.
I would think locating poverty isn't the problem. Do we really not know where the poor people are? The article is all about some huge international agency making a determination where best to send aid. I'll go out on a limb and say satellite imagery isn't going to make any of those more effective.