And so because you're too inept to handle actually acting like a parent the government should legally require the rest of us to do your parenting for you.
If this were a private company I'd be of the opinion that their internal security is their concern but this is a government office and the people who pay the bills have a right to know what's going on.
If it's a normally safe object and only leads to a death because of some insanely unlikely series of circumstances no. If it's something insanely dangerous like unprotected extremely high voltage equipment, explosives or a dangerous weapon hell yes.
If 90 of their command and control servers are knocked off can't they just push an update out through one of their other 159 command servers to the botnet to add another 1000 potential command and control servers scattered around the internet?
Sometimes I hear about these patents and upon further reading there's actually some substance to them and the short description turns out to be unfair. So I ask slashdot- does this patent have any real substance with anything that's genuinely innovative?
stop being a self rightous cunt. I'm pro EU. I like the whole free trade and free movement.
Not everyone who thinks the EU is overly ineffecient and bureaucratic is a daily mail reader or even actually against the EU. Not everyone who thinks the EU has had a long standing problem with corruption and lack of accountability is a daily mail reader or even actually against the EU.
You do know that many of the richest EU countries base their economies heavily on providing servies already? We're not all ignorant savages outside the US. The service sector is the dominant sector of the UK economy and also many of the other big rich EU countries.
They only eat 2 or 4 times as much, if most of the customers are anorexic (in bandwidth terms the little old granny who barely does more than read her email) then it might be more than 5 times the average for an extremely fat person.
In any case the point is don't advertise "all you can eat" and then kick people out because they've eaten more than you estimated they would or ate more than a few times the average amount. It doesn't matter if your business model assumes that they won't eat that much. That just means you've got a poorly planned business model. Yes you could charge the anorexics less if everyone followed their lead and ate less. Your poor planning is not the fat person's fault.
If you're going to start kicking people out for eating too much then you're not running an All You Can Eat and if you're advertising it as such you should then be prosecuted for false advertising.
On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.
They have a tendency to eat all the time. Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave doesn't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there's another person using it as well sometimes. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office kitchen. You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug. Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.
Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.
However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.
Fatties are very bad for that. Part of it is because of the farting, most fat people will just keep serving out what they've eaten until they are stopped. Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge. They'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later. They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.
As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work. So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.
indeed, very likely it took some people who were very capable.
But ubisoft did the stupid thing: bragged that their new system was going to be really hard to crack and there's few things that will get hackers hacking faster than telling them they're not smart enough to do it.
Oh teachers are special. They should never be fired for gross incompetence, assessed in any way o even rated publicly. Especially if you ask teachers unions.
You get some lovely catch 22's with the teachers union here too. Here the unions position is literally "there are no bad teachers".
One shining example stands out for me... a teacher who was consistently drunk throughout my time in highschool. Completely out of it the whole time. Now of course the teachers union maintains that it doesn't oppose firing teachers who are drunk on the job... BUT.
The catch 22 is that the only evidence of a teacher being drunk on the job which is acceptable to the union is a blood test. The teachers union will not allow teachers to be required to undergo such test under any circumstances.
Hence the only way the drunken teacher can be fired is if she either admits it openly or hands them a blood sample for no reason.
The cry of "but the union doesn't defend drunken teachers!!!!" which you hear from teacher is a load of shit. They do defend drunken teacher, they just pretend those teachers aren't regularly drunk on the job .
The sad thing is that portal 2 will be a disappointment. It may in fact be a fantastic game but it will be judged next to portal which is pretty much a perfect game.
as it stands any cyberwar launched by a government would be missed in the noise due to insignificance next to the legions of botnets, script kiddies, hackers, crackers and miscellaneous.
If you're running a well know organisation? probably. It depends what you consider an attack.
Is a portscan an attack? Is sending a single packet to a port an attack or are we looking for more than worms trying to buffer overflows? Is emailing one of the staff a virus an attack? Is emailing one of the staff with a link to a virus an attack? etc etc.
depending on what you consider an attack you could easily hit tens of thousands.
Re:...and at the same conference, FBI director say
on
There Is No Cyberwar
·
· Score: 1
The internet is essentially a massive number of walled communities. There is nothing that any potential adversary could do which isn't already being done by the botnet herders and we seem to be doing fine despite them.
In any case I see little or no way in which the government could do a better job than the current crop of sys admins.
Slashdot Mirror
And so because you're too inept to handle actually acting like a parent the government should legally require the rest of us to do your parenting for you.
If this were a private company I'd be of the opinion that their internal security is their concern but this is a government office and the people who pay the bills have a right to know what's going on.
This one seems to be kinda interesting too:
"Intermittent access to beer promotes binge-like drinking in adolescent but not adult Wistar rats. "
If it's a normally safe object and only leads to a death because of some insanely unlikely series of circumstances no.
If it's something insanely dangerous like unprotected extremely high voltage equipment, explosives or a dangerous weapon hell yes.
Ya I'm not really seeing the victory here.
If 90 of their command and control servers are knocked off can't they just push an update out through one of their other 159 command servers to the botnet to add another 1000 potential command and control servers scattered around the internet?
Sometimes I hear about these patents and upon further reading there's actually some substance to them and the short description turns out to be unfair.
So I ask slashdot- does this patent have any real substance with anything that's genuinely innovative?
and if you outlawed password crackers and port scanners online robberies wouldn't happen.
stop being a self rightous cunt.
I'm pro EU.
I like the whole free trade and free movement.
Not everyone who thinks the EU is overly ineffecient and bureaucratic is a daily mail reader or even actually against the EU.
Not everyone who thinks the EU has had a long standing problem with corruption and lack of accountability is a daily mail reader or even actually against the EU.
You do know that many of the richest EU countries base their economies heavily on providing servies already?
We're not all ignorant savages outside the US.
The service sector is the dominant sector of the UK economy and also many of the other big rich EU countries.
but sometimes it's worth the corruption and the bureaucracy.
They only eat 2 or 4 times as much, if most of the customers are anorexic (in bandwidth terms the little old granny who barely does more than read her email) then it might be more than 5 times the average for an extremely fat person.
In any case the point is don't advertise "all you can eat" and then kick people out because they've eaten more than you estimated they would or ate more than a few times the average amount.
It doesn't matter if your business model assumes that they won't eat that much.
That just means you've got a poorly planned business model.
Yes you could charge the anorexics less if everyone followed their lead and ate less.
Your poor planning is not the fat person's fault.
If you're going to start kicking people out for eating too much then you're not running an All You Can Eat and if you're advertising it as such you should then be prosecuted for false advertising.
That sounds damned impressive.
On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.
They have a tendency to eat all the time. Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave doesn't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there's another person using it as well sometimes. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office kitchen. You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug. Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.
Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.
However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.
Fatties are very bad for that. Part of it is because of the farting, most fat people will just keep serving out what they've eaten until they are stopped. Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge. They'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later. They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.
As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work.
So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.
That was disturbingly easy to translate....
Thanks muchly!
That really was fascinating.
Cheers
indeed, very likely it took some people who were very capable.
But ubisoft did the stupid thing: bragged that their new system was going to be really hard to crack and there's few things that will get hackers hacking faster than telling them they're not smart enough to do it.
Oh teachers are special.
They should never be fired for gross incompetence, assessed in any way o even rated publicly.
Especially if you ask teachers unions.
You get some lovely catch 22's with the teachers union here too.
Here the unions position is literally "there are no bad teachers".
One shining example stands out for me... a teacher who was consistently drunk throughout my time in highschool.
Completely out of it the whole time.
Now of course the teachers union maintains that it doesn't oppose firing teachers who are drunk on the job... BUT.
The catch 22 is that the only evidence of a teacher being drunk on the job which is acceptable to the union is a blood test.
The teachers union will not allow teachers to be required to undergo such test under any circumstances.
Hence the only way the drunken teacher can be fired is if she either admits it openly or hands them a blood sample for no reason.
The cry of "but the union doesn't defend drunken teachers!!!!" which you hear from teacher is a load of shit.
They do defend drunken teacher, they just pretend those teachers aren't regularly drunk on the job .
I'd love to find the source for this.
It sounds fascinating.
Mind if I add this to my file of well written arguments for future quoting when people propose these kinds of things?
Is an attribution of
-fuzzyfuzzyfungus(Slashdot)
ok?
I don't like to just grab people's arguments and use them wholesale without attribution.
I'd look at it almost more like breathing in a virus vs someone trying to stab you.
both are attacks.
both could kill you.
but one is a sort of generalized low level risk for everyone and the other is someone being out to hurt you specifically.
The sad thing is that portal 2 will be a disappointment.
It may in fact be a fantastic game but it will be judged next to portal which is pretty much a perfect game.
When I heard that one my first thought was that it was a nod to Red Dwarf.
But where do all the calculators go?
as it stands any cyberwar launched by a government would be missed in the noise due to insignificance next to the legions of botnets, script kiddies, hackers, crackers and miscellaneous.
If you're running a well know organisation? probably.
It depends what you consider an attack.
Is a portscan an attack?
Is sending a single packet to a port an attack or are we looking for more than worms trying to buffer overflows?
Is emailing one of the staff a virus an attack?
Is emailing one of the staff with a link to a virus an attack?
etc etc.
depending on what you consider an attack you could easily hit tens of thousands.
The internet is essentially a massive number of walled communities.
There is nothing that any potential adversary could do which isn't already being done by the botnet herders and we seem to be doing fine despite them.
In any case I see little or no way in which the government could do a better job than the current crop of sys admins.
seriously: have you ever been an admin for any internet facing server?
Hundreds of attacks a day is nothing amazing.
That's background noise.