Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
The WSJ's entire premise is based upon the idea that space is small enough that we could search it for other inhabited planets in the time we've been looking.
Space isn't that small.
Space is so big that BILLIONS of years will pass before we even see the light shining from a sun in a different galaxy.
The universe could have 10,000 intelligent species that we will never know about because they are just too far from us.
Re:"extensive measures" taken...
on
NVIDIA Breached
·
· Score: 1
No, "necessary" entirely misses the point.
No. That is the point.
Users will find a way to do what they desire to do, and they'll find a way to make it easy to do so.
Now think about a bank. Physical access to the money is controlled and verified and audited.
Employees at a bank are NOT allowed to do whatever is easier for them. They do NOT prop open the secure doors.
If they do so, they are fired.
So why would Facebook be any different? Because people can SEE when the doors to the money are propped open. But they cannot SEE the network access.
You are wrong.
Re:"extensive measures" taken...
on
NVIDIA Breached
·
· Score: 1
[Difficulty of unauthorized access] / [Difficulty of authorized access]
I would change that second part to
"necessary access"
. I'll explain in a moment.
Making authorized access harder reduces security because people. People will always make it easier fo themselves.
In my experience, the first problem is EGO. There is always some executive who bases his/her EGO on what exemptions he/she can get.
I'm too important NOT to have access to X. From anywhere. Along with all my people.
And then other executives have to have the same access because, otherwise, they are not as important. And IT can handle it, right?
So you end up with too many people with too much access. And admin/root access to their machines. That they also use for non-work related activities because why shouldn't I have iTunes on my work laptop?
So you end up with 100 people with VPN access to the HR servers and 95 of them don't even know it and 99 of them don't use it. BUT THEY ALL "HAVE" TO HAVE IT AND IT IS AUTHORIZED.
In the world of physical security, the lesson is: "any door along the quickest path between where people work and the smoking area will be propped open - don't even try to fight it, instead make sure that doesn't compromise security".
And with computer security, they bring the open doors with them. Wherever they go. And they are authorized to do so.
But it is not necessary for them to have that authorization.
For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one.
Bullshit. Just having the cameras showing that it was the other guy's fault when he hit you should be enough to reduce your premiums. And reduce lawsuits as the insurance companies learn how much video is available.
Congestion will depend upon the specific situation. But since you won't have to focus on it, will it matter as much? And I would expect that the car would call home for the most expeditious route available to it. Accident 1 mile ahead, get off highway at this exit, take these streets, get back on highway after accident... automatically.
I think you're starting with the assumption that it is important for a religious person to know what exactly, objectively happened, rather then what the internal and psychological meaning of something in their religious text is.
No. Christmas is NOT in the Bible.
The various church's leaders decided that the CELEBRATION would be held on certain days. And those days were not all the same. They still are not.
This is more like Alice having her party on Saturday instead of her actual birth-date. And Bob being offended that SATURDAY is not exclusive to Alice's BIRTH-DATE.
And then people defending Bob's right to be offended because his FEELINGS should supersede the facts.
Yes, and you could also inform someone on their birthday that theres actually nothing special about the day astronomically and that they're quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
1. Not on their birthday. On the day of the party (which is specifically NOT their birthday).
2. astronomically? No one I know believes that their birthday (or the party) is astronomically significant. Do you?
3. All my friends understand that they ARE "insignificant in the grand scheme of things." They are only significant to their friends and family. Which is why we're having the party. Do you believe that you have some significance "in the grand scheme of things"?
4. Pointing out that Alice did X does NOT mean that Bob did NOT do Y. Newton's achievements do not invalidate Jesus' achievements.
5. Jesus does not seem to have been offended by that tweet. Just people who do not understand these points.
It doesn't matter if he's "right", what matters is the consequence of his actions, and that is turning religious people away from science further while making his "pro-science" (a ridiculous term) fans more, well, fanatical.
If stating a fact annoys a fanatic then that is the fanatic's problem.
Particularly when the religious fanatic in question does not understand the specifics of their own religion.
I'm sure that he has done more with that one tweet to raise awareness that Christmas is the CELEBRATION of the birth of Jesus and NOT the actual birth of Jesus (which was not recorded).
And if there are adults who cannot emotionally deal with that fact then fuck them.
On the other hand, educated immigrants (also bearing educated children) might improve the economy as a whole, since their presence lowers the cost of doing business while adding new entrepreneurs.
I think immigration helps this country (and our economy).
The problem is that he is attempting to conflate FOUR different issues:
1. USA! USA! USA! - (technology superpower): Just make all the STEM programs FREE. You want college level calc? Here's your free book and this is when/where your free class meets. His approach would have us relying on the educational systems in other countries that supply the immigrants. That's stupid.
2. Immigration - he really means H-1B visas.
3. Cheap labour - see #2.
4. What would personally benefit him and his company - see #3.
If we are turning away Nobel laureates because of our immigration limits... no, we aren't. It's about cheap labour.
From TFA:
I asked the CEO of a startup with about 70 programmers how many more he'd hire if he could get all the great programmers he wanted. He said "We'd hire 30 tomorrow morning." And this is one of the hot startups that always win recruiting battles. It's the same all over Silicon Valley. Startups are that constrained for talent.
Bullshit. Startups are constrained by MONEY.
It is a RISK for an established programmer to work for a startup. They have families. They have responsibilities. You have to offer them a LOT of money to take that risk.
While I believe that you intended that as a joke, it actually reflects the reality that he missed.
Becoming a programmer requires that a certain amount of infrastructure exist to provide the education necessary. So , no, we aren't talking about 95% vs 5%.
Secondly, the companies pushing for more visas are NOT doing it because they're looking for the best and the brightest from around the world. They're doing it to drive the price of programming down.
It's fucking PROGRAMMING. It can be done ANYWHERE in the world. If company X wants to hire the top 20 programmers in India then they can do that. And those programmers can work from home (in India). They are the best, right?
(speak slowly and distinctly here) Hi. This is (your name). My number is (your number).
(speak normally here) Now state the situation as clearly as you can. But be brief. This is a message. Not exposition.
End with repeating your name (slowly and clearly) and your phone number.
Thank you.
The easiest way to do this is to realize that you MIGHT run into voice mail before you pick up the phone. Go through the message in your head before dialing. This will cut down on the uh and um and huh and em and other noises.
"People north of 40 are schizophrenic about voice mail," says Michael Schrage.
Bullshit. I'm old and I hate voice mail. No one knows how to leave a message and they're just going to follow up with an email or come see you in person anyway.
If you're just going to leave a message that says "call me back" then send an email or a text or an IM. Or use the scheduling function in email to set up an appointment with me.
The worst offender was a manager I worked with some years ago. He would do the stream-of-consciousness thing whenever he got voicemail and you'd end up with 10 sentences covering 10 different topics. Which I would then turn into 10 different email messages and send back to him.
It's communication! It is NOT the same as talking. Just because you're talking does NOT mean you're communicating.
What makes you think those places will still be more polluted than the US by that time?
Science.
There's this magic assumption on your part that the current state remains unchanged.
No. But YOU have not explained WHO would clean up the YEARS of pollution or WHY they would do so.
Greece is first world too.
Yes, as I have specifically pointed out to you.
Those Greek workers aren't pursuing opportunities in Greece. They are actually chasing opportunities in the developed world.
Again, as I have specifically pointed out to you.
You are restating the points that I have made while ignoring your own claims.
If the EU ceases to be developed world,...
HOW would that happen?
Also Greece isn't an unusual case of a first world country with net emigration. The article mentions Ireland, Spain, and Portugal as well.
And, again, it is the WORKERS who are pursuing jobs in other 1st world countries.
It is NOT the OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES moving to the 3rd world. The OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES are moving the manufacturing jobs to the 3rd world while they keep their families in the 1st world.
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a WORKER and a person who OWNS THE COMPANY.
I already noted the developed world as a counterexample.
It isn't a "counterexample". It is where the people who own the factories that are deploying robots live. 3rd world companies still use people because they're 3rd world and people are cheaper than machines for them.
This is a non sequitur.
*sigh*
Of course, when portions of the developed world are no longer developed, then the people who own companies and many other people as well, will move to places where basic services are still supported.
So when the USofA becomes "no longer developed" then the rich will move to the countries that have been polluted by their factories.
No. That is not going to happen.
That need not remain the case, as Greece has demonstrated (they already are emigrating at a substantial rate to other parts of the EU).
The Greeks looking for work are moving to other 1st world countries where the job opportunities in their fields are better. So they chase those opportunities... in the 1st world.
The Greeks who own companies that were moving manufacturing to the 3rd world are not moving to the 3rd world.
Call it "race to the bottom", "exporting the pollution", whatever, but it remains that a growing amount of valuable economic activity has been chased out of the developed world and it's not coming back.
It has not been "chased out" of any where. What you see is the people who own the companies looking for the cheapest means to produce their products.
Look closer and you will see that the people who own the companies are NOT moving their families to the countries where they've moved their companies.
They want cheap for the workers... but they want all the benefits and luxuries of the 1st world available to themselves.
If it really was "chased out" then they'd also be moving their families to those less-regulated, less-restricted countries.
As can been seen when people leave countries/governments that they believe ARE oppressive. They take their families with them.
Low-focus attacks are easier to defend against: If Home Depot's systems had been better protected, the hackers would have just moved on to an easier target.
He is phrasing it incorrectly. The attacks are scripted and BLIND. They don't attack X and skip Y if X is vulnerable. Or attack Y if X is not vulnerable. They attack A - Z regardless of the success or failure of any single attack.
And 100% agreement with your air gap recommendation.
With attackers who are highly skilled and highly focused, however, what matters is whether a targeted company's security is superior to the attacker's skills, not just to the security measures of other companies.
He's got it right there. Once you are online you can be attacked by anyone anywhere. The only advantage you have is that you control the wire in your organization. Wireless is more of a pain. But you can see every packet moving on the wire.
It is hard to put a dollar value on security that is strong enough to assure you that your embarrassing emails and personnel information won't end up posted online somewhere, but Sony clearly failed here.
In my experience, the problem is not money. The problem is EGO. Someone is always convinced that what they are doing is more important than following what the IT nerds say and they have the political clout within the company to force exceptions be made.
It is the exceptions that damage your security.
It is the exceptions that allow the easy-to-prevent attacks to get a foothold on your network. THEN the more advanced attacks are unleashed.
Well if you look at what has been "common knowledge" in SF in years past...
And she gets her terms wrong.
Knowing that we are not alone in the universe would be a profound realization, and contact with an alien civilization could produce amazing technological innovations and cultural insights.
The universe includes all the galaxies. Our sun will probably burn out before we get a message from another galaxy. Stick to your own galaxy. That is difficult enough.
Which brings up the next error:
Even if I am wrong -- even if the majority of alien civilizations turn out to be biological -- it may be that the most intelligent alien civilizations will be ones in which the inhabitants are SAI.
SAI is her term for "superintelligent artificial intelligence". So she has just written a tautology. Unless you want to get into super-superintelligent or ultra-superintelligent.
It's not as expensive to spend the money to properly maintain your security than it is to have it massively breached and all your data stolen.
Not as expensive if you only count money.
But in my experience, the problem is the upper executives and their insistence on special exceptions for them and their people who are doing work that is just so important that they cannot be burdened with following the security that applies to non-important people.
And I hope Sony, and all other Big Companies (tm), learn a lesson.
I think that this reinforces the wrong lesson. Everything is okay as long as you can find someone else to blame. Whether it's an employee or a hacker group or a country. The focus will be more on THEM rather than Sony executives who broke security so that they could feel more important than the nerds in IT.
If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.
Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.
And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.
And he makes a FUNDAMENTAL mistake by focusing on "defining how a new technology approach will add value".
At the CxO level that is easy to do. It will allow the company to synergize your core with blah blah buzzword blah buzzword.
But the reality is that it is about adding more achievements and buzzwords to someone's resume so that they can move on before their choices bite them.
Conservative Christians do indeed suck, but I can't think of any serious terrorist or even violent activity by Christians in a very long time, except for a couple cases of some lone wacko shooting an abortion doctor.
The difference is the power structure.
You don't have to personally beat someone for your beliefs if you can have the police do it for you because your beliefs are the law.
Muslims, however, are infamous for organizing to do violent deeds.
The same can be said (and has) about the black "rioters" and the current protests here.
Advocating for various laws (which aren't very successful BTW, gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted in America now and is becoming legal all over; these days I think most ultraconservatives are more worried about illegal immigration, gun control, and various other issues than about gay marriage) is not similar to carrying out violent, terroristic acts.
The difference is whether the majority view them as "legitimate" exercises of violence.
Passing a law that will be used more against X than Y will not be seen as a problem by Y. And the Y's will tend to view any X that complains as being a problem.
100 years ago blacks could not marry whites. And violence against a black man accused of sex with a white woman was "justified".
20 years ago gay marriage was illegal. And it wasn't a "hate crime" to beat someone just because you thought he was gay. I remember online arguments just 10 years ago.
Right now there are states where it is legal to have an abortion BUT it is almost impossible due to the legal restrictions placed upon it. Even if the woman's life is in danger.
Those with the power to make and enforce the laws do not need to personally take hostages.
Slashdot Mirror
Douglas Adams said it best:
The WSJ's entire premise is based upon the idea that space is small enough that we could search it for other inhabited planets in the time we've been looking.
Space isn't that small.
Space is so big that BILLIONS of years will pass before we even see the light shining from a sun in a different galaxy.
The universe could have 10,000 intelligent species that we will never know about because they are just too far from us.
No. That is the point.
Now think about a bank. Physical access to the money is controlled and verified and audited.
Employees at a bank are NOT allowed to do whatever is easier for them. They do NOT prop open the secure doors.
If they do so, they are fired.
So why would Facebook be any different? Because people can SEE when the doors to the money are propped open. But they cannot SEE the network access.
You are wrong.
I would change that second part to
. I'll explain in a moment.
In my experience, the first problem is EGO. There is always some executive who bases his/her EGO on what exemptions he/she can get.
I'm too important NOT to have access to X.
From anywhere.
Along with all my people.
And then other executives have to have the same access because, otherwise, they are not as important. And IT can handle it, right?
So you end up with too many people with too much access. And admin/root access to their machines. That they also use for non-work related activities because why shouldn't I have iTunes on my work laptop?
So you end up with 100 people with VPN access to the HR servers and 95 of them don't even know it and 99 of them don't use it. BUT THEY ALL "HAVE" TO HAVE IT AND IT IS AUTHORIZED.
And with computer security, they bring the open doors with them. Wherever they go. And they are authorized to do so.
But it is not necessary for them to have that authorization.
From the summary:
Bullshit. Just having the cameras showing that it was the other guy's fault when he hit you should be enough to reduce your premiums. And reduce lawsuits as the insurance companies learn how much video is available.
Congestion will depend upon the specific situation. But since you won't have to focus on it, will it matter as much? And I would expect that the car would call home for the most expeditious route available to it. Accident 1 mile ahead, get off highway at this exit, take these streets, get back on highway after accident ... automatically.
Thanksgiving? The harvest festival? The one that isn't even common to Christians? Is that the Thanksgiving that you're talking about?
Are you going to bring up the 4th of July next?
No. Christmas is NOT in the Bible.
The various church's leaders decided that the CELEBRATION would be held on certain days. And those days were not all the same. They still are not.
This is more like Alice having her party on Saturday instead of her actual birth-date. And Bob being offended that SATURDAY is not exclusive to Alice's BIRTH-DATE.
And then people defending Bob's right to be offended because his FEELINGS should supersede the facts.
1. Not on their birthday. On the day of the party (which is specifically NOT their birthday).
2. astronomically? No one I know believes that their birthday (or the party) is astronomically significant. Do you?
3. All my friends understand that they ARE "insignificant in the grand scheme of things." They are only significant to their friends and family. Which is why we're having the party. Do you believe that you have some significance "in the grand scheme of things"?
4. Pointing out that Alice did X does NOT mean that Bob did NOT do Y. Newton's achievements do not invalidate Jesus' achievements.
5. Jesus does not seem to have been offended by that tweet. Just people who do not understand these points.
If stating a fact annoys a fanatic then that is the fanatic's problem.
Particularly when the religious fanatic in question does not understand the specifics of their own religion.
I'm sure that he has done more with that one tweet to raise awareness that Christmas is the CELEBRATION of the birth of Jesus and NOT the actual birth of Jesus (which was not recorded).
And if there are adults who cannot emotionally deal with that fact then fuck them.
Why was she offended?
It isn't even the supposed birthday of Jesus.
It's the day that the party is held.
So what was offensive to your wife about it?
I think immigration helps this country (and our economy).
The problem is that he is attempting to conflate FOUR different issues:
1. USA! USA! USA! - (technology superpower): Just make all the STEM programs FREE. You want college level calc? Here's your free book and this is when/where your free class meets. His approach would have us relying on the educational systems in other countries that supply the immigrants. That's stupid.
2. Immigration - he really means H-1B visas.
3. Cheap labour - see #2.
4. What would personally benefit him and his company - see #3.
If we are turning away Nobel laureates because of our immigration limits ... no, we aren't. It's about cheap labour.
From TFA:
Bullshit. Startups are constrained by MONEY.
It is a RISK for an established programmer to work for a startup. They have families. They have responsibilities. You have to offer them a LOT of money to take that risk.
While I believe that you intended that as a joke, it actually reflects the reality that he missed.
Becoming a programmer requires that a certain amount of infrastructure exist to provide the education necessary. So , no, we aren't talking about 95% vs 5%.
Secondly, the companies pushing for more visas are NOT doing it because they're looking for the best and the brightest from around the world. They're doing it to drive the price of programming down.
It's fucking PROGRAMMING. It can be done ANYWHERE in the world. If company X wants to hire the top 20 programmers in India then they can do that. And those programmers can work from home (in India). They are the best, right?
Voice mail etiquette.
(speak slowly and distinctly here) Hi. This is (your name). My number is (your number).
(speak normally here) Now state the situation as clearly as you can. But be brief. This is a message. Not exposition.
End with repeating your name (slowly and clearly) and your phone number.
Thank you.
The easiest way to do this is to realize that you MIGHT run into voice mail before you pick up the phone. Go through the message in your head before dialing. This will cut down on the uh and um and huh and em and other noises.
You're right! That's, um, the, uh, problem.
Bullshit. I'm old and I hate voice mail. No one knows how to leave a message and they're just going to follow up with an email or come see you in person anyway.
If you're just going to leave a message that says "call me back" then send an email or a text or an IM. Or use the scheduling function in email to set up an appointment with me.
The worst offender was a manager I worked with some years ago. He would do the stream-of-consciousness thing whenever he got voicemail and you'd end up with 10 sentences covering 10 different topics. Which I would then turn into 10 different email messages and send back to him.
It's communication! It is NOT the same as talking. Just because you're talking does NOT mean you're communicating.
So, in your scenario, is there anyone who is not corrupt/complicit in some degree?
Science.
No. But YOU have not explained WHO would clean up the YEARS of pollution or WHY they would do so.
Yes, as I have specifically pointed out to you.
Again, as I have specifically pointed out to you.
You are restating the points that I have made while ignoring your own claims.
HOW would that happen?
And, again, it is the WORKERS who are pursuing jobs in other 1st world countries.
It is NOT the OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES moving to the 3rd world. The OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES are moving the manufacturing jobs to the 3rd world while they keep their families in the 1st world.
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a WORKER and a person who OWNS THE COMPANY.
It isn't a "counterexample". It is where the people who own the factories that are deploying robots live. 3rd world companies still use people because they're 3rd world and people are cheaper than machines for them.
*sigh*
So when the USofA becomes "no longer developed" then the rich will move to the countries that have been polluted by their factories.
No. That is not going to happen.
The Greeks looking for work are moving to other 1st world countries where the job opportunities in their fields are better. So they chase those opportunities ... in the 1st world.
The Greeks who own companies that were moving manufacturing to the 3rd world are not moving to the 3rd world.
It has not been "chased out" of any where. What you see is the people who own the companies looking for the cheapest means to produce their products.
Look closer and you will see that the people who own the companies are NOT moving their families to the countries where they've moved their companies.
They want cheap for the workers ... but they want all the benefits and luxuries of the 1st world available to themselves.
If it really was "chased out" then they'd also be moving their families to those less-regulated, less-restricted countries.
As can been seen when people leave countries/governments that they believe ARE oppressive. They take their families with them.
From what I've read, the Target crack was funnelled through a 3rd party HVAC company that did not secure their systems sufficiently.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/target-hackers-broke-in-via-hvac-company/
They may have done more AFTER the scripts gave them access. But it appears that the scripts gave them the initial access.
And one of the aspects where I disagree with him:
He is phrasing it incorrectly. The attacks are scripted and BLIND. They don't attack X and skip Y if X is vulnerable. Or attack Y if X is not vulnerable. They attack A - Z regardless of the success or failure of any single attack.
And 100% agreement with your air gap recommendation.
He's got it right there. Once you are online you can be attacked by anyone anywhere. The only advantage you have is that you control the wire in your organization. Wireless is more of a pain. But you can see every packet moving on the wire.
In my experience, the problem is not money. The problem is EGO. Someone is always convinced that what they are doing is more important than following what the IT nerds say and they have the political clout within the company to force exceptions be made.
It is the exceptions that damage your security.
It is the exceptions that allow the easy-to-prevent attacks to get a foothold on your network. THEN the more advanced attacks are unleashed.
Well if you look at what has been "common knowledge" in SF in years past ...
And she gets her terms wrong.
The universe includes all the galaxies. Our sun will probably burn out before we get a message from another galaxy. Stick to your own galaxy. That is difficult enough.
Which brings up the next error:
SAI is her term for "superintelligent artificial intelligence". So she has just written a tautology. Unless you want to get into super-superintelligent or ultra-superintelligent.
And the rest is more of the same.
They're computer crackers. What are they going to do? Why all the fear?
Not as expensive if you only count money.
But in my experience, the problem is the upper executives and their insistence on special exceptions for them and their people who are doing work that is just so important that they cannot be burdened with following the security that applies to non-important people.
I think that this reinforces the wrong lesson. Everything is okay as long as you can find someone else to blame. Whether it's an employee or a hacker group or a country. The focus will be more on THEM rather than Sony executives who broke security so that they could feel more important than the nerds in IT.
Yep. And even more so.
If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.
Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.
And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.
And he makes a FUNDAMENTAL mistake by focusing on "defining how a new technology approach will add value".
At the CxO level that is easy to do. It will allow the company to synergize your core with blah blah buzzword blah buzzword.
But the reality is that it is about adding more achievements and buzzwords to someone's resume so that they can move on before their choices bite them.
The difference is the power structure.
You don't have to personally beat someone for your beliefs if you can have the police do it for you because your beliefs are the law.
The same can be said (and has) about the black "rioters" and the current protests here.
The difference is whether the majority view them as "legitimate" exercises of violence.
Passing a law that will be used more against X than Y will not be seen as a problem by Y. And the Y's will tend to view any X that complains as being a problem.
100 years ago blacks could not marry whites. And violence against a black man accused of sex with a white woman was "justified".
20 years ago gay marriage was illegal. And it wasn't a "hate crime" to beat someone just because you thought he was gay. I remember online arguments just 10 years ago.
Right now there are states where it is legal to have an abortion BUT it is almost impossible due to the legal restrictions placed upon it. Even if the woman's life is in danger.
Those with the power to make and enforce the laws do not need to personally take hostages.