Seems it would've been smarter if we had played dumb and covertly made preparations to thwart any such attacks.
Even if the message was authentic and there was a reason to release that information WHY is this going through the WSJ instead of from The White House?
The next question is WHO will call for the prosecution of the journalist at the WSJ who published this.
And WHO will call for the investigation and prosecution of who leaked that information.
how is it that common standards make so much sense for html, programming languages, engineering but not for human communication?
I know this one!
It's because everyone has been talking for as long as they can remember and they confuse that with communication.
After that it becomes a question of what they want to communicate versus what communication you expect to receive. Ever met a manager who talks during the entire meeting even though nothing he is saying applies to the subject of the meeting?
I'm going to guess that you've never been in the military.
Think about a conscript. His country is at war because of his politicians. His personal beliefs don't matter. He either fights or he, at best, is in jail. Remember the kids who went to Canada instead of being drafted to fight in Vietnam?
So the least that the professional soldiers and responsible politicians can do is to make basic rules so that that kid can get back to his pre-war life with as much of his body still intact as possible.
Chemical weapons are a problem because they usually do not kill. It takes a LOT of chemicals and the right environment to kill. But they do tear up lungs and eyes and nervous systems. So the casualties may be able to move themselves but they cannot pick up their old lives again.
Now imagine the impact that has on a country AFTER the war. Thousands and thousands of disabled citizens that have trouble working.
Strands, as Nick Hawes of the University of Birmingham said, will "develop novel approaches to extract spatio-temporal structure from sensor data gathered during months of autonomous operation," to develop intelligence that can then "exploit [those] structures to yield adaptive behavior in highly demanding, real-world security and care scenarios."
The key problem with that is that the subjects the robot is studying will know that they are being studied and will be able to alter their behaviour to change what the robot "learns".
Even if they get a commercially viable product on the road in 2020, it'll be at least a generation of these things being on the roads before people become comfortable enough with the technology to trust their lives to it en mass.
Once people figure out that you can have sex in the car on the way to work only the lonely will still be driving.
We're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.
Hardly. We have a lot more options than just (invade | do-not-invade). We can help the refugees for one.
Right now this smacks too much of "wag the dog". A nice war against a "bad man" so that everyone can forget the NSA leaks. And a big party when we kill the "bad man".
The idea is to save lives in the long run by putting limits on harsh regimes in that they don't want to risk the UN/USA coming down on them.
The problem with that is that it is just as easy to kill thousands of people with regular bullets and bombs as it is with chemical weapons.
From a military standpoint, chemical weapons are used for two main reasons: 1. To deny terrain to the enemy.
2. To "soften" a "hardened" target. That's where the enemy is dug in so much that regular bullets and bombs are not effective.
That is not saying that chemical weapons cannot be used on a civilian town. Just that using them is no more effective than artillery or bombs or sending a infantry company in.
There's been rumors of Syria using chemical weapons for a while now, Barack Obama has reinforced the US policy of 'We'll go after anybody who uses CBRNE/NBC weapons', but has been waffling that Syrian weapon use has been unconfirmed.
And that gets back to it being just as easy to kill people with bombs and bullets as it is with chemical weapons.
Why do we care so much that it is *CHEMICAL WEAPONS* as opposed to *BULLETS*?
Why would we not want to get involved if 10,000 people are killed by bullets? But 100 people killed by nerve agent and we're in an uproar?
I guarantee that we will kill/cripple more civilians in a war than they have killed/crippled with chemicals.
I'm on Beacon Hill. Our Internet services vary from street to street. It's ludicrous! I'm stuck with a slow provider right now, but a "gigabit" provider is trying to get access one block away.
Why do you think we legalized pot? Your connection might be slow but you cool with it.
I guess that's good if you have a short attention span.
I presented you with an example from Firefly. So I'm a bit confused by your "short attention span" comment.
Do you believe that Inara's and Zoe's contrasting attire was so that the writers could expend less energy? Or so that the viewers would not get them confused with each other?
Except that fails as a narrative device in this situation.
Having each character wear their own outfit would allow for a visual "shorthand" for that character's history and personality.
Firefly and Blake's 7 are great examples of this. Why does Mal wear that long coat? Inara wears skirts and dresses but Zoe is usually wearing trousers. Jayne's outfits are different from Simon's.
The question I have is why the "renegades" need their own uniforms. From TFA:
Any science fiction fan knows you canâ(TM)t just go to a thrift shop and get your costumes. In Renegades, we will have Starfleet uniforms of course, but our crew, not being Starfleet, will have all new designs.
So they're not Starfleet and it appears that it will just be one ship (at the moment). So why the uniforms? Why not just "casual"?
I'm sure that they knew the numbers were crap. Just like they're still going with the crap.
From TFA:
âoeWhen you meet an engineer that has spent a good chunk of his life working on some innovation and itâ(TM)s stolen overnight, you get a good feeling for what [intellectual property] loss means.
And does Mr Fey have the name of that engineer so that others can "meet" him/her? And interview him/her?
Or is that ANOTHER fiction created to help move product?
... but specifically noted the difficulty of determining exactly how much companies, governments and individuals could lose if subject to an attack.
And why are "individuals" grouped together with governments and companies?
Any cumulative losses, he said, would likely ignore data breaches that companies failed to disclose to the public, or those who did not know they had been breached, a problem in itself he said.
So any losses calculated MAY not include losses that were not known to have been losses at the time of the calculation.
âoeIf youâ(TM)re a Fortune 10,000 company, youâ(TM)ve been breached.â
And if you're running McAfee software, you may not even know that you've been cracked. Although, to be fair, the same can be said of Norton and any of the other "anti-virus" software.
No problem. Everyone will have their own idea of which are most important.
My rational for that order is because of the possibility that other apps with similar exploit levels (or even lower in some cases) can be "chained" together to get root access (whether local or remote).
Looking at the order you placed them in, I'd guess that you prioritized exploits for remote access over root access.
... normal office computers, not running data-centric applications, access just 9.58GB of unique data per day.
Round up to 10GB. So in 2 weeks (10 working days) that's an additional 100GB stored locally.
In 20 weeks you've filled up a 1TB drive.
What kind of office (aside from video production) works like that? The ones I know of, most of the machines are used to check email, do data entry on one or two database apps, surf, maybe create some documents or spreadsheets which are then stored on the file server. Other than the database apps, that's less than a couple of megabytes per person per day. And other than temp files, NONE of it should be stored on the local machine.
And if your average user is caching 10GB of temp files then you have a problem with your apps.
If they are not already running a firewall then they're probably already infected.
If they are running a firewall then they might be infected through a 3rd party app (I'm looking at you, Java). Or maybe not infected at all (that is possible).
Which will be the exact same situation when XP support expires.
If he is leaving happy, get his contact info and ask if you can check in with him in the future if you have more questions.
Most of the issues I've run into over the years did not center around HOW something was done but WHY that particular design was chosen. Usually there's one or two weird items at every site that the rest of the system has be designed to accommodate.
You do realize that you can be both the customer and the product.
Not in a "free" scenario you can't. The service that Google offers you is their cost of producing their product (which is you viewing ads).
Some other company might develop a cheaper means of producing you as a product but you are still the product.
This "you are the product not a customer" tripe, can be used for almost anything.
Only if you do not understand "product" and "customer" and "marketing". You do not, personally, pay Google any money. You only cost them money to produce. Advertisers are where Google gets its profits.
I think that part of the rant is more talking about the limitations of the 'free market will fix everything' concept,...
Except he specifically mentions Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail as the services. Those are "free" email services.
In those situations, you are not the customer. You are the product. The advertisers and such are the customers.
The 'free market will fix everything' concept does not really apply the way the cattle at the cattle yard would like it to.
So in the phone example, he can enforce the 'free market' by spending his money elsewhere. In the email example, the best he can do is to make his emails less spammy and that might cost money. But it is not money that would affect each of those services.
Can that be done with his whole "review" or whatever?
Similarly, every time I say that my Circumventor mailing list keeps getting blocked as "spam" by Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, or AOL (despite being 100% verified-opt-in, natch), someone tells me that if the free market is blocking my emails as unwanted, it must be because the users don't want them.
Three links in one sentence about his mailing list being blocked in what is supposedly a rant about a company's cell phone.
What The Fuck?
It reads like some conspiracy theorist's rant. Subject A is linked to unrelated subject B which is linked to unrelated subject C, then D, then E. Stream of consciousness doesn't even describe it.
As users can do more for themselves and don't have to wait for IT, they do more, so more gets used. The real gain, then, might be that more gets accomplished as IT becomes less of a bottleneck.
As with your calorie example, you won't end up with more work being "accomplished".
You'll end up with more fat.
Look! I can record HD video and upload it to the data center and then embed it in my Power Point presentation and then email it to everyone as an attachment. With just a few clicks. Instantly.
Right now most of the people I deal with are more interested in the fonts on a document rather than the content of the document (which they will rarely read in the first place).
Give me information. Not opinion, not yellow press nonsense, not articles that were copy/pasted from some online news source or some news agency,...
I'd be okay with opinions as long as the bias was clearly stated and the facts were presented to support it.
Do an exclusive interview with an interesting person, a politician with a vision (who doesn't just repeat whatever bull his party wants to spew), report about stuff that matters, send a reporter there and ask the people around for their view.
And focus on the LOCAL material. What are the LOCAL politicians doing? What LOCAL impacts will there be? And it is fine to have a bias in that reporting. As long as it is a bias and not partisanship.
And do NOT turn it into a fake "fight" between different reporters. I do not care about reporter-A's opinion of reporter-B's opinion of politician-C's latest statement. I don't care for "reporters" repeating talking-points.
Ignore the "official" bull and dig deeper.
And always "follow the money". Follow the family connections.
... although we've read most of the national and international news online 1 or 2 (or sometimes even 3) days before, there are stories in Sonoma County (and parts north) that simply don't show up anywhere else.
That is what is killing the newspaper business (IMO). Anyone can get the AP stories instantly now. If something happens in Washington D.C. there will be dozens of identical reports about it.
If something happens in your town you might catch it on a local news show. Unless they're also busy covering what just happened in D.C.
A local paper can give you the local news and tell you what the local impact of whatever it was that just happened in D.C. will be.
But in order to do that, the local paper has to hire local reporters who have more knowledge/expertise than the average person. And it is cheaper to skip that and just buy the stories from the AP. And then fail because no one wants to pay for a paper when you've already read the content on your PC, iPad and phone.
Security through obscurity isn't "no security at all". It's just inadequate. There's still the hurdle of overcoming obscurity.
No.
Security is not about becoming invulnerable. That is impossible. Security is about reducing the number of people who can EFFECTIVELY attack you.
Security-Through-Obscurity does NOTHING to improve the existing security model of the system BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A WAY TO BYPASS THE EXISTING SECURITY MODEL.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the message was authentic and there was a reason to release that information WHY is this going through the WSJ instead of from The White House?
The next question is WHO will call for the prosecution of the journalist at the WSJ who published this.
And WHO will call for the investigation and prosecution of who leaked that information.
I know this one!
It's because everyone has been talking for as long as they can remember and they confuse that with communication.
After that it becomes a question of what they want to communicate versus what communication you expect to receive. Ever met a manager who talks during the entire meeting even though nothing he is saying applies to the subject of the meeting?
But first off, don't be stupid. Sanitize/Sterilize ALL of your data PRIOR to starting your trip.
They cannot find what you are not carrying.
I'm going to guess that you've never been in the military.
Think about a conscript. His country is at war because of his politicians. His personal beliefs don't matter. He either fights or he, at best, is in jail. Remember the kids who went to Canada instead of being drafted to fight in Vietnam?
So the least that the professional soldiers and responsible politicians can do is to make basic rules so that that kid can get back to his pre-war life with as much of his body still intact as possible.
Chemical weapons are a problem because they usually do not kill. It takes a LOT of chemicals and the right environment to kill. But they do tear up lungs and eyes and nervous systems. So the casualties may be able to move themselves but they cannot pick up their old lives again.
Now imagine the impact that has on a country AFTER the war. Thousands and thousands of disabled citizens that have trouble working.
Damn! You beat me to it. Anyway, from TFA:
The key problem with that is that the subjects the robot is studying will know that they are being studied and will be able to alter their behaviour to change what the robot "learns".
Once people figure out that you can have sex in the car on the way to work only the lonely will still be driving.
Hardly. We have a lot more options than just (invade | do-not-invade). We can help the refugees for one.
Right now this smacks too much of "wag the dog". A nice war against a "bad man" so that everyone can forget the NSA leaks. And a big party when we kill the "bad man".
The problem with that is that it is just as easy to kill thousands of people with regular bullets and bombs as it is with chemical weapons.
From a military standpoint, chemical weapons are used for two main reasons:
1. To deny terrain to the enemy.
2. To "soften" a "hardened" target. That's where the enemy is dug in so much that regular bullets and bombs are not effective.
That is not saying that chemical weapons cannot be used on a civilian town. Just that using them is no more effective than artillery or bombs or sending a infantry company in.
And that gets back to it being just as easy to kill people with bombs and bullets as it is with chemical weapons.
Why do we care so much that it is *CHEMICAL WEAPONS* as opposed to *BULLETS*?
Why would we not want to get involved if 10,000 people are killed by bullets? But 100 people killed by nerve agent and we're in an uproar?
I guarantee that we will kill/cripple more civilians in a war than they have killed/crippled with chemicals.
I'm on Beacon Hill. Our Internet services vary from street to street. It's ludicrous! I'm stuck with a slow provider right now, but a "gigabit" provider is trying to get access one block away.
Why do you think we legalized pot? Your connection might be slow but you cool with it.
I presented you with an example from Firefly. So I'm a bit confused by your "short attention span" comment.
Do you believe that Inara's and Zoe's contrasting attire was so that the writers could expend less energy? Or so that the viewers would not get them confused with each other?
Except that fails as a narrative device in this situation.
Having each character wear their own outfit would allow for a visual "shorthand" for that character's history and personality.
Firefly and Blake's 7 are great examples of this. Why does Mal wear that long coat? Inara wears skirts and dresses but Zoe is usually wearing trousers. Jayne's outfits are different from Simon's.
The question I have is why the "renegades" need their own uniforms. From TFA:
So they're not Starfleet and it appears that it will just be one ship (at the moment). So why the uniforms? Why not just "casual"?
NO MORE PAJAMAS IN SPACE!
I'm sure that they knew the numbers were crap. Just like they're still going with the crap.
From TFA:
And does Mr Fey have the name of that engineer so that others can "meet" him/her? And interview him/her?
Or is that ANOTHER fiction created to help move product?
And why are "individuals" grouped together with governments and companies?
So any losses calculated MAY not include losses that were not known to have been losses at the time of the calculation.
And if you're running McAfee software, you may not even know that you've been cracked. Although, to be fair, the same can be said of Norton and any of the other "anti-virus" software.
No problem. Everyone will have their own idea of which are most important.
My rational for that order is because of the possibility that other apps with similar exploit levels (or even lower in some cases) can be "chained" together to get root access (whether local or remote).
Looking at the order you placed them in, I'd guess that you prioritized exploits for remote access over root access.
That's the part that I found to be the weirdest bit in there. And then they put a sensationalistic title on it.
Instead, I'd prioritize work based on my own categorization.
1. A remote attack that gains root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
2. A remote attack that gains non-root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
3. A local attack that gains root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
4. A local attack that gains non-root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
5. A remote attack that gains root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps.
6. A remote attack that gains non-root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps.
7. A local attack that gains root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps.
8. A local attack that gains non-root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps.
9. Remote OS crash.
10. Remote app crash.
11. Local OS crash.
12. Local app crash.
Round up to 10GB. So in 2 weeks (10 working days) that's an additional 100GB stored locally.
In 20 weeks you've filled up a 1TB drive.
What kind of office (aside from video production) works like that? The ones I know of, most of the machines are used to check email, do data entry on one or two database apps, surf, maybe create some documents or spreadsheets which are then stored on the file server. Other than the database apps, that's less than a couple of megabytes per person per day. And other than temp files, NONE of it should be stored on the local machine.
And if your average user is caching 10GB of temp files then you have a problem with your apps.
If they are not already running a firewall then they're probably already infected.
If they are running a firewall then they might be infected through a 3rd party app (I'm looking at you, Java). Or maybe not infected at all (that is possible).
Which will be the exact same situation when XP support expires.
If he is leaving happy, get his contact info and ask if you can check in with him in the future if you have more questions.
Most of the issues I've run into over the years did not center around HOW something was done but WHY that particular design was chosen. Usually there's one or two weird items at every site that the rest of the system has be designed to accommodate.
Not in a "free" scenario you can't. The service that Google offers you is their cost of producing their product (which is you viewing ads).
Some other company might develop a cheaper means of producing you as a product but you are still the product.
Only if you do not understand "product" and "customer" and "marketing". You do not, personally, pay Google any money. You only cost them money to produce. Advertisers are where Google gets its profits.
Except he specifically mentions Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail as the services. Those are "free" email services.
In those situations, you are not the customer. You are the product. The advertisers and such are the customers.
The 'free market will fix everything' concept does not really apply the way the cattle at the cattle yard would like it to.
So in the phone example, he can enforce the 'free market' by spending his money elsewhere. In the email example, the best he can do is to make his emails less spammy and that might cost money. But it is not money that would affect each of those services.
Can that be done with his whole "review" or whatever?
Three links in one sentence about his mailing list being blocked in what is supposedly a rant about a company's cell phone.
What The Fuck?
It reads like some conspiracy theorist's rant. Subject A is linked to unrelated subject B which is linked to unrelated subject C, then D, then E. Stream of consciousness doesn't even describe it.
As with your calorie example, you won't end up with more work being "accomplished".
You'll end up with more fat.
Look! I can record HD video and upload it to the data center and then embed it in my Power Point presentation and then email it to everyone as an attachment. With just a few clicks. Instantly.
Right now most of the people I deal with are more interested in the fonts on a document rather than the content of the document (which they will rarely read in the first place).
I'd be okay with opinions as long as the bias was clearly stated and the facts were presented to support it.
And focus on the LOCAL material. What are the LOCAL politicians doing? What LOCAL impacts will there be? And it is fine to have a bias in that reporting. As long as it is a bias and not partisanship.
And do NOT turn it into a fake "fight" between different reporters. I do not care about reporter-A's opinion of reporter-B's opinion of politician-C's latest statement. I don't care for "reporters" repeating talking-points.
And always "follow the money". Follow the family connections.
That is what is killing the newspaper business (IMO). Anyone can get the AP stories instantly now. If something happens in Washington D.C. there will be dozens of identical reports about it.
If something happens in your town you might catch it on a local news show. Unless they're also busy covering what just happened in D.C.
A local paper can give you the local news and tell you what the local impact of whatever it was that just happened in D.C. will be.
But in order to do that, the local paper has to hire local reporters who have more knowledge/expertise than the average person. And it is cheaper to skip that and just buy the stories from the AP. And then fail because no one wants to pay for a paper when you've already read the content on your PC, iPad and phone.
No.
Security is not about becoming invulnerable. That is impossible. Security is about reducing the number of people who can EFFECTIVELY attack you.
Security-Through-Obscurity does NOTHING to improve the existing security model of the system BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A WAY TO BYPASS THE EXISTING SECURITY MODEL.
You're thinking "drivers", not "cars".
But you're right anyway. Without autonomous cars this will never happen.