Daaaaaaamn. Well, not like it washes the hands of LBJ or anything, and I already had a pretty low opinion of Nixon, but that just drops it a massive peg even lower.
You're right, that's worse than spying. Fuckin' A, millions died after we ditched Vietnam. If that could have been averted by going to peace-talks instead of fucking around in Cambodia and Laos... ok wow, I'm going to have to slide that original argument a notch further into the future and say that Bush is the worst president Nixon. I thought it was LBJ, but no, Nixon was worse than Bush.
Why do you think that the presidents before WWII "don't matter"? Do you think that the lessons of the great depression don't matter? How about the robber-baron era? Did the war of 1812 just not do it for you? Were the Federalists' ideas just not important enough? Is that all just a waste of time?
Sorry for forgetting Carter and suggesting that people don't have any personal memory of presidents before Nixon. I was really just making a point that Bush caused the worst fuckup since Vietnam. But you seem to be selectively interested in moments in history and suggesting that one period is more important than the rest isn't very sound advice. WWII was pretty bloody important and had some serious impact. But if you only study the moments of crisis, you'll forget how things are supposed to go during calm times. And if you fuck up the calm times, it's just going to be crisis after crisis.
Awwww that's so cute that you read part of the actual leaked cable. And yes, that's a quote from the first part of the cable. That's not the blackmail part though. It's kind of referencing it, so I understand your confusion, but keep scrolling down. Or, here you go:
5. (C) In follow up to the April 2 meeting, EconDep met with Pfizer Country Manager Enrico Liggeri in Lagos on April 9. (Note: Liggeri has years of experience in Nigeria because his family operated a business in Lagos from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. He spent most of his childhood in Lagos. End Note.) Liggeri said Pfizer was not happy settling the case, but had come to the conclusion that the $75 million figure was reasonable because the suits had been ongoing for many years costing Pfizer more than $15 million a year in legal and investigative fees. According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to Federal Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer's investigators were passing this information to local media, XXXXXXXXXXXX. A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa's "alleged" corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa's cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles.
Don't like a lawsuit coming against you? Keep digging up dirt about the lawyers until they stop whining about all those dead children. Because hey, clinical trials are expensive and Nigirian children are cheap. Right?
And as for the smuggling one.... yeah.... " The PM claimed that Chevron had told him that it had already raised the issue of a cross-border development with Tehran as well. " There you go. Chevron isn't allowed to deal with Iran. Because we have sanctions against them. Doing so is illegal. This leaks shows that Chevron is negotiating a deal that would break those sanctions. If that deal goes through, it's smuggling.
Oh, wait. I see what you're saying. Since the PM (Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki) said that he will of course not go through with the deal if violates US law, then of course nothing bad happened and Chevron is in the clear.... Dude, Nouri al-Maliki is the PM of IRAQ, not IRAN, you slack-jawed fucking nitwit. He let slip that Chevron told him they were dealing with IRAN. Which if ILLEGAL.
On prostitution: And yet no one is in jail, and this is recurring behaviour with Dyncorp, and they still get US contracts...
On spaying: It doesn't matter if it's not new, it's still ILLEGAL.
You're desperate attempt at deflecting the accusations with blatant misinformation and casual acceptance of illegal activity has me terrified. Who the fuck are you?
No. I've known utterly wired meth heads that were just as lazy afterwards, but, man, were they really tense about it.
I believe I've identified the issue. It's sorta like how rogain stops working after you stop taking it. Or how the muscles go away after you stop steroids. Or how coffee doesn't do anything for me the day after. Which is kind of a good thing. There are times I want to sleep.
Meth? It's got some bitchy side-effects, but I hear it's one hell of an upper. The sort of thing that tired immigrants drift to when they desperately need to keep awake or lose their hand in the looms. Or whatever immigrants lose their hands to now a days.
I also hear you can party all night on cocaine.
If you want something with a milder punch, stick to caffeine.
"No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Manning."
what crimes?
Child prostitution -SOMEONE at Dyncorp and the US government for employing them to do so. Blackmail -SOMEONE at Pfizer. Smuggling -SOMEONE at Chevron. Espionage Hilary Clinton and the State department. It goes on and on. It's almost as if there's a systematic flaw that's so pervasive it's hard to see the trees for the forest. Seriously, haven't you looked at any of this?
"No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Snowden."
As a culture we haven't even decided if information sent though multiple servers around the globe IS private.
Yet as a legal body we HAVE decided that email is private for the first 180 days. At least by US law. And we're pretty damn sure even as an amorphous cultural body of billions of people that encrypted communications is private, so suck it.
You can try to refute all that citation (and hey, some of it might even be off), but you'd best bring a big-ass list of citeable sources and have a DAMN good argument for why I shouldn't believe what appears to be really bloody obvious to me.
Well because it was a shit-ton better before Bush. Back then the USA was riding high after the cold war and the worst that the president did was have an affair. Or raise taxes after promising not to. Or have an ill-conceived tax reform. Or just kinda not get much done. Or a crook who abused his position to spy on his political adversaries. And that was bad. Seriously bad. A stain upon our history. And that's getting to about the extent of our memory. I had to google who was president before Nixon, and I had forgotten about Carter. Sorry, there's only so much history I have at the tip of my mind.
Let me make this perfectly clear. Bush was FAR WORSE then ALL OF THAT. He took an emotionally unstable first-world super-power in a post-9/11 trauma and decided to invade Iraq. He lead us into a quagmire that cost a shit-ton of money, got a (historically small) number of US troops killed, got a SHIT-TON of civilians killed, and didn't have much to show for it all except something to put on his mantle and funneling billions of dollars to his friends. Let me repeat that: He pre-emptivly invaded a nation. He started a war based on a lie. He was objectively a far worse president than anything in the last 50 years, doing absolutely retarded things that damaged this nation and brought about hardship to us all.
Before Nixon is the long long ago where we had an idiot that double-downed on Vietnam. Or the guy who thought make-work would fix the economy. Or the asshole who thought sitting on his hands would keep it all from falling apart. And to be fair to Bush, Vietnam was worse, although LBJ didn't exactly start the whole thing. The atrocities that the CIA did in the name of fighting the commies was probably worse. Arguably it lead to 9/11, but that's almost a philosophical debate at this point.
The Obama administration has some originality you know.
Yeah, even Bush didn't straight up openly assasinate US citizens. That's a new terror. But most of this bullshit with surveillance really got going under Bush with the excuse that it was to fight the terrorists after 9/11. Obama certainly picked that up and is running with it, but we can still lay a portion of that blame at Bush's feet.
You feel that because of some twisted nationalistic pride and unquestioning faith that the overlords are benevolent, know what they're doing, and are above the vast swaths of historical abuse by similar authority figures. We feel he's been unfairly treated because of a lot of things. 1) He exposed a whole hell of a lot of people doing "forbidden" things. Most of whom are never going to face prison time, courts, fines or even a slap on the wrist. 2) The people he's exposing have previously concealed their wrongdoing. Gaming the system of justice is serious infraction. It's often worse than what they're hiding. 3) The people he's exposing have a vast amount of political power and very much have control over his punishment. I don't think it's a stretch to say that they're abusing their power and being vindictive. 4) He's been tortured. Not the sort of torture with massive blood loss, hideous scars, and severed limbs, but the sort of torture you get in a lab setting. And it looks like it was enough to break him.
Yes, he should face consequences for violating orders and exposing secrets. And he should face praise and leniency for making the USA a better place and upholding his oath. You know, to protect the nation from threats from within.
Fedora has SELinux, and everyone complains about and disables it
. . . Wut? Dude, SELinux was merged into the Linux kernel. A decade ago. Development continues. merges continue. And as a "security researcher" like yourself you should know that Linux has a lot of MAC implementations: TOMOYO, SELinux, AppArmor and SMACK.
AppArmor is an extremly lightweight form of MAC, and only Ubuntu implements it correctly.
As apposed to Window's "rudimentary MAC implementation"? And I don't know what's wrong with SUSE's AppArmor, but Ubuntu is the most common Linux distribution. And as for "lightweight".
[AppArmor] also only applies to applications that ship with the distro.
Uh...... bullshit? Cite that. Seriously. Because it's not really an optional thing. That's the "M" in MAC. "Mandatory". Anything you get from the solution center, apt-get, or download and compile are going to be running with the mother-may-I from AppArmor. Were you getting ahead of yourself and thinking about ASLR?
Most distributions don't include applications compiled with support for DEP and ASLR, despite the support being in the kernel.
AH! Now you say DEP and ASLR aren't common. Just like MAC isn't common in Linux. Because Ubuntu just isn't common enough for you (until later in your post). And hey, you're probably right about the uptake of DEP and ASLR by Linux applications. But Windows applications fail just as hard. Also, wow that was a way's back there, but the discussion originally focused on security. You know, people using TOR? So, for this aspect, it doesn't matter so much how common a feature is, as long as it's available to the people who want security. So, you know, stop making arguments that don't make sense. Like suggesting a child instal Win7 on a 486. I'm not going to let you forget that fuckup.
[number of] Vulnerabilities are a pretty poor measure of security,
Yeah, I'd agree, but you're the one quoted the marketing fluff: "Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions. Due to the mitigating technologies done right and increased focus on security resulting in few vulnerabilities." So I figured I'd throw some statistics at you.
Also a fun statistic, from your very source Linux: Unpatched 0% (0 of 259 Secunia advisories) Windows 7: Unpatched 4% (6 of 148 Secunia advisories)
Wait... what? Sorry, could you expound on that one a little bit more? My only exposure to swede culture is from Minnesota. It involves fishing, casseroles, and jokes about being south Canada.
You really have a hard time letting things go don't you? Let's go over the whole thing again. Here's your original statement:
Finally, Using a more recent windows version is actually good for security. ASLR, DEP, a rudimentary MAC implementation, UAC...despite what people say, Windows is actually one of the better operating systems security wise these days. Not just because of the preventive technology that most other OS's don't have (OS X has a lacking and broken implementation, most linux distros are not as complete in their implementations..), but because Microsoft started taking security seriously and vulnerabilities are rare these days.
You are claiming that Windows is better than Linux, in terms of security, because it has a laundry list of "preventative technologies that most other OS's don't have". You've claimed that Linux doesn't have complete implementations.
I have shown that Linux, including it's most popular distributions, has ASLR, DEP, MAC, and a division between root and users (which is better than having a UAC, but that's my opinion).
You tried to claim that MAC, ASLR, and DEP was not commonly implemented. I countered that they are all in Ubuntu. You countered that... what... Fedora, SELinux, and UBUNTU isn't widespread enough for you... Seriously? Are you trying to argue that Ubuntu isn't "common"?
You showed that I was wrong about applications need to be recompiled for ASLR and DEP and hence are a "Distro thing" and not inherently in the kernel, and you claim the uptake of these security features lagged. As if everyone instantly updated to the latest version of windows. So bravo. You showed me. Congratulations for spreading some knowledge. Now accept my offering of knowledge and accept that you have no reason to believe that MS is more secure than Linux.
You then retreat to a blanket marketing slogan:
My point was that on average, Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions. Due to the mitigating technologies done right and increased focus on security resulting in few vulnerabilities.
And I showed you that Windows has has more vulnerabilities than Linux. (...in 2012. Feel free to do the research, cite it, and show me I'm wrong for other years)
After that you gave up and have, so far, stated that you don't want to reply to me three times. LET'S GO FOR A FOURTH! (Are you paid per post or something?)
Straight man answer: You have, or form, a constitution which lays down the basic rights that apply to everyone. You reason out to the majority that they might be on the receiving end of the stick some day and these rules will protect them as much as it limits them. And it's good for society and all that shit. Then you establish a rule of law where the powerful will still be punished for breaking the law. *cough*NSA's Clapper lying to congress*cough*.
That's how, you know, it's supposed to go. In theory....It's beautiful to dream, isn't it?
Children dressed as zealots screaming "For Aiur!" into reverb boxes. Now that would be adorable. But no, while you can't argue with zealots, you can most certainly debate them. You know, in a public forum. You can show to the masses that they're full of shit and that their zealotry is misplaced. And since I've soundly refuted your entire original post and you've provided zero additional justification, and yet you STILL seem to think that Microsoft's Windows OS is somehow a better choice when it comes to security, I'd have to say you're the zealot here. You refuse to believe anything other than what you originally believed despite all the evidence showing otherwise.
You're simply wrong. What you believed to be true is not. Not only are you wrong about the technical aspects of Linux Vs Windows, you apparently also have a pretty shitty grasp of socioeconomic issues around the world.
OH OH! I know, about about you make a THIRD POST about about it's pointless to replay to me. That'll show 'em!
Yeah, I can't believe anyone even tangentially involved in software even thought of making that statement. That it's an IP lawyer... from REDHAT... that's just plain embarrassing.
Imagine you're looking to go on a cruise. You shop around for a cruise ship to go on. It'll cost a pretty penny and there are ships of various sizes and quality. And then there's this crazy captain that, while his ship is new and shiny, openly states that all passengers will be shackled, chained to an oar, and sold to the highest bidder once they reach port. Upon hearing the lament of the crowd, and hardly anyone signing up, he has a change of heart: No shackles, no chains. So come on, we're all looking for a good time here. I've turned over a new leaf. Trust me. I don't REALLY want to brutally dominate your every waking moment. It was just a silly idea I was floating out there. Hey! If you don't like chains, I don't like chains. Not that I'm saying the chains were a bad idea. I still think you'd really like them. But for now there will be no chains on my ship.
I had some distant family that got screwed over by a lawyer. He botched the will. The father died, the kids were assholes, and the mother was left with nothing. So she sued. The lawyer did whatever shenanigans lawyers can do to delay things while he consolidated his money and bought a fancy house and car. By the time the case went forward and locked down his assets he hardly had anything of worth other than the house and car. He loses the case and they come for his money, but they're not allowed to touch his home or his means of transport. So she ended up getting nothing.
But this is the sort of game that rich people who can afford lawyers play. The laws apply to Raynaldo because he can't afford the legal footwork to dance around those laws.
No, we've got about 3 software guys. But individual engineers still sign for their portion of the work. When we release a version of software the engineer who wrote the thing signs for it. We try to get someone else to write the tests and someone else to run the tests when we can. For the last major OBOGS project we worked on I signed for module that actually held the sensors while the team lead signed for the controller. Him, a couple contractors, and myself all had portions of that code in there, but he was steering the boat so he signed for it. And I imagine that the system engineer signed for the unit on the whole.
I'm not responsible for keeping the slide valve from sticking, or the keeping the beds from filling with water. And no one on the team is responsible for supplying the OBOGS unit with bleed air that isn't on fire. That's an upstream requirement. Can't feed the pilot an inferno. Which is why the OBOGS shut down on that F-22 back in 2011. (It was a competitor's product.) But I am most certainly responsible for alerting the pilot that his OBOGS has shut down and that he has to switch over the bottled gas....ok, in that last project specifically, I was responsible for telling the controller board that the temperature was out of range... but it's an important step in the chain. If that step is missing, no alert comes on, the pilot doesn't know to switch over, he dies, plane crashes, and it all goes to hell.
you think nobody in management is taking responsibility for ensuring that your piece work[s]
Correct. Quite specifically I'm a professional and if I screw up I personally can be thrown in jail for gross negligence. The sort that kills people. The bosses responsibility is to ensure that the professional says he did the professional thing and tested it all. Hell, there are a lot of layers of over-arcing responsibility as far as subsystems go, and none of those guys are management. Now, if we actually kill someone the hammer would come down on everyone, the department, and the company on the whole. But I'd be on the legal hook for my end of the product. If the manager decides to, say, skip the testing step and gives a cost-benefit-analysis song and dance, he's responsible for that. If he tells us to make another version of software, and WE skip or screw up the tests, then we're responsible for that.
Well it's good that you at least understand that you're being a jerk. But let's make this clear: It's illegal like it was illegal to be black during the era of Jim Crow laws.
So, you know, the equivalent comeback would go along the lines of :
What are you, an idiot? That law you reference is itself illegal, get it through your head. A hundred years ago they could lynch you for being black and no one would bat an eye. Do you think that would fly today? Time change. "Sinner" my ass -- that's a word used by fascists, now get back in line with modern moral standards before we sue you, your commander, and the whole army instead of just cutting your pay for a month.
All in all I think it's just another sign of how old and cumbersome our military is. Don't get me wrong, it's not something I want to be volatile and fickle. I just have little faith that they'll be able to adapt to a real modern threat. Case in point, nukes make the option of first-world full-scale combat kinda moot. So why are we pissing away our money on a navy? Does it cost that much to shoot some Somali pirates? Projecting force onto third world nations? Do we need the F-22 (or even the F-35) for that? Why are we doing it in the first place? Old and busted is the term. It applies to the whole military, not just their bullshit laws about adultery.
But what they might have learned was that things could get done in a timely basis.
Oh yeah, prototyping is important. If you can't make a prototype you probably can't make a full fledged product. And depending on just what the hell the product is, there might not even be a need for any engineering. Sometimes you really just want a one-shot fire and forget product. But usually it's something that gets developed further, tweaked, customized, used as the starting point for the next project, or maintained for 15 years.
Basically the math is that you must at least fire the bad employees at the same rate you are losing good employees.
Or you could, you know, not hire bad employees? Or better still, how about you not let your top talent be sniped by someone willing to open their purse-strings? But yeah, the dead sea effect is common in the IT industry. Usually it's more of an issue where everyone is constantly jumping ship to another company and that's the only way you can get a pay raise. Which... I think is more prevalent on the west coast than here in the midwest.
A while back this guy fired all the people he had identified as not refilling the coffee pot. At first he was pilloried as being a terrible boss but the remaining employees stood up for him and said he had fired all the selfish asswipes and troublemakers.
Well yeah they said that. They didn't want to get fired!
The marketing manager got a pat on the back for tackling a tough problem and got to go back to marketing. The 4 members moved on to a better paying job when they learned the bonuses weren't continuous and they were underpaid. Now the remaining 7 developers are desperately trying to make heads or tails of an undocumented project in a language they don't know and coded like something a fresh grad would output.
But hey, they got the project out the door. Which is a REALLY GOOD first step. Without that step, there is no step #2. But if it's something they want to maintain, a tiny little dash of actual software engineering helps a lot.
"designed some systems" Not management. This is typical engineering work. "worked together with other people" That's just called work. We live in societies. "...where he had to direct and/or manage" Yes, that's management. "explain implementation" Not management. "tell other people how some pieces of the software should be implemented" Not management, but it's closer. If a manager did something like this they'd be guilty of micromanaging.
And, as many others have pointed out, leading is different than managing. But you're exactly right, when they ask 'why you never managed' you deflect it with answering how much of a leader you are.
but if after 14 years experience in industry you've never held a position of responsibility,
... I develop OBOGS. I'm responsible for keeping fighter pilots from asphyxiating, dying, and crashing multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. It's mission critical. And if that damn warning doesn't go off they have no idea they need to manually switch over to bottled air and everything goes to hell. I sign for that. I'm responsible for it.
Sorry for throwing all professionalism aside, but claiming that anything other than management isn't a "position of responsibility" is bullshit. Fuck you.
Slashdot Mirror
Daaaaaaamn. Well, not like it washes the hands of LBJ or anything, and I already had a pretty low opinion of Nixon, but that just drops it a massive peg even lower.
You're right, that's worse than spying. Fuckin' A, millions died after we ditched Vietnam. If that could have been averted by going to peace-talks instead of fucking around in Cambodia and Laos... ok wow, I'm going to have to slide that original argument a notch further into the future and say that Bush is the worst president Nixon. I thought it was LBJ, but no, Nixon was worse than Bush.
Why do you think that the presidents before WWII "don't matter"? Do you think that the lessons of the great depression don't matter? How about the robber-baron era? Did the war of 1812 just not do it for you? Were the Federalists' ideas just not important enough? Is that all just a waste of time?
Sorry for forgetting Carter and suggesting that people don't have any personal memory of presidents before Nixon. I was really just making a point that Bush caused the worst fuckup since Vietnam. But you seem to be selectively interested in moments in history and suggesting that one period is more important than the rest isn't very sound advice. WWII was pretty bloody important and had some serious impact. But if you only study the moments of crisis, you'll forget how things are supposed to go during calm times. And if you fuck up the calm times, it's just going to be crisis after crisis.
Uuuugh....
You're desperate. They are your desperate attempts... bloody hell.
Awwww that's so cute that you read part of the actual leaked cable.
And yes, that's a quote from the first part of the cable. That's not the blackmail part though. It's kind of referencing it, so I understand your confusion, but keep scrolling down. Or, here you go:
5. (C) In follow up to the April 2 meeting, EconDep met with Pfizer Country Manager Enrico Liggeri in Lagos on April 9. (Note: Liggeri has years of experience in Nigeria because his family operated a business in Lagos from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. He spent most of his childhood in Lagos. End Note.) Liggeri said Pfizer was not happy settling the case, but had come to the conclusion that the $75 million figure was reasonable because the suits had been ongoing for many years costing Pfizer more than $15 million a year in legal and investigative fees. According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to Federal Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer's investigators were passing this information to local media, XXXXXXXXXXXX. A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa's "alleged" corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa's cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles.
Don't like a lawsuit coming against you? Keep digging up dirt about the lawyers until they stop whining about all those dead children. Because hey, clinical trials are expensive and Nigirian children are cheap. Right?
And as for the smuggling one.... yeah....
" The PM claimed that Chevron had told him that it had already raised the issue of a cross-border development with Tehran as well. "
There you go. Chevron isn't allowed to deal with Iran. Because we have sanctions against them. Doing so is illegal. This leaks shows that Chevron is negotiating a deal that would break those sanctions. If that deal goes through, it's smuggling.
Oh, wait. I see what you're saying. Since the PM (Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki) said that he will of course not go through with the deal if violates US law, then of course nothing bad happened and Chevron is in the clear.... Dude, Nouri al-Maliki is the PM of IRAQ, not IRAN, you slack-jawed fucking nitwit. He let slip that Chevron told him they were dealing with IRAN. Which if ILLEGAL.
On prostitution: And yet no one is in jail, and this is recurring behaviour with Dyncorp, and they still get US contracts...
On spaying: It doesn't matter if it's not new, it's still ILLEGAL.
You're desperate attempt at deflecting the accusations with blatant misinformation and casual acceptance of illegal activity has me terrified. Who the fuck are you?
No. I've known utterly wired meth heads that were just as lazy afterwards, but, man, were they really tense about it.
I believe I've identified the issue. It's sorta like how rogain stops working after you stop taking it. Or how the muscles go away after you stop steroids. Or how coffee doesn't do anything for me the day after. Which is kind of a good thing. There are times I want to sleep.
How about a drug that cures laziness
Meth?
It's got some bitchy side-effects, but I hear it's one hell of an upper. The sort of thing that tired immigrants drift to when they desperately need to keep awake or lose their hand in the looms. Or whatever immigrants lose their hands to now a days.
I also hear you can party all night on cocaine.
If you want something with a milder punch, stick to caffeine.
"No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Manning."
what crimes?
Child prostitution -SOMEONE at Dyncorp and the US government for employing them to do so.
Blackmail -SOMEONE at Pfizer.
Smuggling -SOMEONE at Chevron.
Espionage Hilary Clinton and the State department.
It goes on and on. It's almost as if there's a systematic flaw that's so pervasive it's hard to see the trees for the forest. Seriously, haven't you looked at any of this?
"No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Snowden."
it's on going, and he uncovered very few crimes.
Perjury - James Clapper.
Illegal warrantless espionage against US citizens on US soil. And no, FISA is not looking over their shoulder.
As a culture we haven't even decided if information sent though multiple servers around the globe IS private.
Yet as a legal body we HAVE decided that email is private for the first 180 days. At least by US law. And we're pretty damn sure even as an amorphous cultural body of billions of people that encrypted communications is private, so suck it.
You can try to refute all that citation (and hey, some of it might even be off), but you'd best bring a big-ass list of citeable sources and have a DAMN good argument for why I shouldn't believe what appears to be really bloody obvious to me.
Well because it was a shit-ton better before Bush. Back then the USA was riding high after the cold war and the worst that the president did was have an affair. Or raise taxes after promising not to. Or have an ill-conceived tax reform. Or just kinda not get much done. Or a crook who abused his position to spy on his political adversaries. And that was bad. Seriously bad. A stain upon our history. And that's getting to about the extent of our memory. I had to google who was president before Nixon, and I had forgotten about Carter. Sorry, there's only so much history I have at the tip of my mind.
Let me make this perfectly clear. Bush was FAR WORSE then ALL OF THAT. He took an emotionally unstable first-world super-power in a post-9/11 trauma and decided to invade Iraq. He lead us into a quagmire that cost a shit-ton of money, got a (historically small) number of US troops killed, got a SHIT-TON of civilians killed, and didn't have much to show for it all except something to put on his mantle and funneling billions of dollars to his friends. Let me repeat that: He pre-emptivly invaded a nation. He started a war based on a lie. He was objectively a far worse president than anything in the last 50 years, doing absolutely retarded things that damaged this nation and brought about hardship to us all.
Before Nixon is the long long ago where we had an idiot that double-downed on Vietnam. Or the guy who thought make-work would fix the economy. Or the asshole who thought sitting on his hands would keep it all from falling apart. And to be fair to Bush, Vietnam was worse, although LBJ didn't exactly start the whole thing. The atrocities that the CIA did in the name of fighting the commies was probably worse. Arguably it lead to 9/11, but that's almost a philosophical debate at this point.
The Obama administration has some originality you know.
Yeah, even Bush didn't straight up openly assasinate US citizens. That's a new terror. But most of this bullshit with surveillance really got going under Bush with the excuse that it was to fight the terrorists after 9/11. Obama certainly picked that up and is running with it, but we can still lay a portion of that blame at Bush's feet.
You feel that because of some twisted nationalistic pride and unquestioning faith that the overlords are benevolent, know what they're doing, and are above the vast swaths of historical abuse by similar authority figures. We feel he's been unfairly treated because of a lot of things.
1) He exposed a whole hell of a lot of people doing "forbidden" things. Most of whom are never going to face prison time, courts, fines or even a slap on the wrist.
2) The people he's exposing have previously concealed their wrongdoing. Gaming the system of justice is serious infraction. It's often worse than what they're hiding.
3) The people he's exposing have a vast amount of political power and very much have control over his punishment. I don't think it's a stretch to say that they're abusing their power and being vindictive.
4) He's been tortured. Not the sort of torture with massive blood loss, hideous scars, and severed limbs, but the sort of torture you get in a lab setting. And it looks like it was enough to break him.
Yes, he should face consequences for violating orders and exposing secrets. And he should face praise and leniency for making the USA a better place and upholding his oath. You know, to protect the nation from threats from within.
Fedora has SELinux, and everyone complains about and disables it
. . . Wut? Dude, SELinux was merged into the Linux kernel. A decade ago. Development continues. merges continue. And as a "security researcher" like yourself you should know that Linux has a lot of MAC implementations: TOMOYO, SELinux, AppArmor and SMACK.
AppArmor is an extremly lightweight form of MAC, and only Ubuntu implements it correctly.
As apposed to Window's "rudimentary MAC implementation"? And I don't know what's wrong with SUSE's AppArmor, but Ubuntu is the most common Linux distribution. And as for "lightweight".
[AppArmor] also only applies to applications that ship with the distro.
Uh...... bullshit? Cite that. Seriously. Because it's not really an optional thing. That's the "M" in MAC. "Mandatory". Anything you get from the solution center, apt-get, or download and compile are going to be running with the mother-may-I from AppArmor. Were you getting ahead of yourself and thinking about ASLR?
Most distributions don't include applications compiled with support for DEP and ASLR, despite the support being in the kernel.
AH! Now you say DEP and ASLR aren't common. Just like MAC isn't common in Linux. Because Ubuntu just isn't common enough for you (until later in your post). And hey, you're probably right about the uptake of DEP and ASLR by Linux applications. But Windows applications fail just as hard. Also, wow that was a way's back there, but the discussion originally focused on security. You know, people using TOR? So, for this aspect, it doesn't matter so much how common a feature is, as long as it's available to the people who want security. So, you know, stop making arguments that don't make sense. Like suggesting a child instal Win7 on a 486. I'm not going to let you forget that fuckup.
[number of] Vulnerabilities are a pretty poor measure of security,
Yeah, I'd agree, but you're the one quoted the marketing fluff: "Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions. Due to the mitigating technologies done right and increased focus on security resulting in few vulnerabilities." So I figured I'd throw some statistics at you.
Also a fun statistic, from your very source
Linux: Unpatched 0% (0 of 259 Secunia advisories)
Windows 7: Unpatched 4% (6 of 148 Secunia advisories)
But yeah, on this point you're right. Linux has had more vulnerabilities. Generally less severe then what's been seen in Win7 though.
Wait... what? Sorry, could you expound on that one a little bit more? My only exposure to swede culture is from Minnesota. It involves fishing, casseroles, and jokes about being south Canada.
You really have a hard time letting things go don't you? Let's go over the whole thing again.
Here's your original statement:
Finally, Using a more recent windows version is actually good for security. ASLR, DEP, a rudimentary MAC implementation, UAC...despite what people say, Windows is actually one of the better operating systems security wise these days. Not just because of the preventive technology that most other OS's don't have (OS X has a lacking and broken implementation, most linux distros are not as complete in their implementations..), but because Microsoft started taking security seriously and vulnerabilities are rare these days.
You are claiming that Windows is better than Linux, in terms of security, because it has a laundry list of "preventative technologies that most other OS's don't have". You've claimed that Linux doesn't have complete implementations.
I have shown that Linux, including it's most popular distributions, has ASLR, DEP, MAC, and a division between root and users (which is better than having a UAC, but that's my opinion).
You tried to claim that MAC, ASLR, and DEP was not commonly implemented. I countered that they are all in Ubuntu. You countered that... what... Fedora, SELinux, and UBUNTU isn't widespread enough for you... Seriously? Are you trying to argue that Ubuntu isn't "common"?
You showed that I was wrong about applications need to be recompiled for ASLR and DEP and hence are a "Distro thing" and not inherently in the kernel, and you claim the uptake of these security features lagged. As if everyone instantly updated to the latest version of windows. So bravo. You showed me. Congratulations for spreading some knowledge. Now accept my offering of knowledge and accept that you have no reason to believe that MS is more secure than Linux.
You then retreat to a blanket marketing slogan:
My point was that on average, Windows is more secure than most Linux distributions. Due to the mitigating technologies done right and increased focus on security resulting in few vulnerabilities.
And I showed you that Windows has has more vulnerabilities than Linux. (...in 2012. Feel free to do the research, cite it, and show me I'm wrong for other years)
After that you gave up and have, so far, stated that you don't want to reply to me three times. LET'S GO FOR A FOURTH! (Are you paid per post or something?)
Moral: Even when you do the professional thing and give two weeks notice, management will still call you a douchebag.
Straight man answer: You have, or form, a constitution which lays down the basic rights that apply to everyone. You reason out to the majority that they might be on the receiving end of the stick some day and these rules will protect them as much as it limits them. And it's good for society and all that shit. Then you establish a rule of law where the powerful will still be punished for breaking the law. *cough*NSA's Clapper lying to congress*cough*.
That's how, you know, it's supposed to go. In theory. ...It's beautiful to dream, isn't it?
Children dressed as zealots screaming "For Aiur!" into reverb boxes. Now that would be adorable. But no, while you can't argue with zealots, you can most certainly debate them. You know, in a public forum. You can show to the masses that they're full of shit and that their zealotry is misplaced. And since I've soundly refuted your entire original post and you've provided zero additional justification, and yet you STILL seem to think that Microsoft's Windows OS is somehow a better choice when it comes to security, I'd have to say you're the zealot here. You refuse to believe anything other than what you originally believed despite all the evidence showing otherwise.
You're simply wrong. What you believed to be true is not. Not only are you wrong about the technical aspects of Linux Vs Windows, you apparently also have a pretty shitty grasp of socioeconomic issues around the world.
OH OH! I know, about about you make a THIRD POST about about it's pointless to replay to me. That'll show 'em!
Yeah, I can't believe anyone even tangentially involved in software even thought of making that statement. That it's an IP lawyer... from REDHAT... that's just plain embarrassing.
This, exactly.
Imagine you're looking to go on a cruise. You shop around for a cruise ship to go on. It'll cost a pretty penny and there are ships of various sizes and quality. And then there's this crazy captain that, while his ship is new and shiny, openly states that all passengers will be shackled, chained to an oar, and sold to the highest bidder once they reach port. Upon hearing the lament of the crowd, and hardly anyone signing up, he has a change of heart: No shackles, no chains. So come on, we're all looking for a good time here. I've turned over a new leaf. Trust me. I don't REALLY want to brutally dominate your every waking moment. It was just a silly idea I was floating out there. Hey! If you don't like chains, I don't like chains. Not that I'm saying the chains were a bad idea. I still think you'd really like them. But for now there will be no chains on my ship.
I had some distant family that got screwed over by a lawyer. He botched the will. The father died, the kids were assholes, and the mother was left with nothing. So she sued. The lawyer did whatever shenanigans lawyers can do to delay things while he consolidated his money and bought a fancy house and car. By the time the case went forward and locked down his assets he hardly had anything of worth other than the house and car. He loses the case and they come for his money, but they're not allowed to touch his home or his means of transport. So she ended up getting nothing.
But this is the sort of game that rich people who can afford lawyers play. The laws apply to Raynaldo because he can't afford the legal footwork to dance around those laws.
No, we've got about 3 software guys. But individual engineers still sign for their portion of the work. When we release a version of software the engineer who wrote the thing signs for it. We try to get someone else to write the tests and someone else to run the tests when we can. For the last major OBOGS project we worked on I signed for module that actually held the sensors while the team lead signed for the controller. Him, a couple contractors, and myself all had portions of that code in there, but he was steering the boat so he signed for it. And I imagine that the system engineer signed for the unit on the whole.
I'm not responsible for keeping the slide valve from sticking, or the keeping the beds from filling with water. And no one on the team is responsible for supplying the OBOGS unit with bleed air that isn't on fire. That's an upstream requirement. Can't feed the pilot an inferno. Which is why the OBOGS shut down on that F-22 back in 2011. (It was a competitor's product.) But I am most certainly responsible for alerting the pilot that his OBOGS has shut down and that he has to switch over the bottled gas. ...ok, in that last project specifically, I was responsible for telling the controller board that the temperature was out of range... but it's an important step in the chain. If that step is missing, no alert comes on, the pilot doesn't know to switch over, he dies, plane crashes, and it all goes to hell.
you think nobody in management is taking responsibility for ensuring that your piece work[s]
Correct. Quite specifically I'm a professional and if I screw up I personally can be thrown in jail for gross negligence. The sort that kills people. The bosses responsibility is to ensure that the professional says he did the professional thing and tested it all. Hell, there are a lot of layers of over-arcing responsibility as far as subsystems go, and none of those guys are management. Now, if we actually kill someone the hammer would come down on everyone, the department, and the company on the whole. But I'd be on the legal hook for my end of the product. If the manager decides to, say, skip the testing step and gives a cost-benefit-analysis song and dance, he's responsible for that. If he tells us to make another version of software, and WE skip or screw up the tests, then we're responsible for that.
Well it's good that you at least understand that you're being a jerk. But let's make this clear: It's illegal like it was illegal to be black during the era of Jim Crow laws.
So, you know, the equivalent comeback would go along the lines of :
What are you, an idiot? That law you reference is itself illegal, get it through your head.
A hundred years ago they could lynch you for being black and no one would bat an eye. Do you think that would fly today? Time change. "Sinner" my ass -- that's a word used by fascists, now get back in line with modern moral standards before we sue you, your commander, and the whole army instead of just cutting your pay for a month.
All in all I think it's just another sign of how old and cumbersome our military is. Don't get me wrong, it's not something I want to be volatile and fickle. I just have little faith that they'll be able to adapt to a real modern threat. Case in point, nukes make the option of first-world full-scale combat kinda moot. So why are we pissing away our money on a navy? Does it cost that much to shoot some Somali pirates? Projecting force onto third world nations? Do we need the F-22 (or even the F-35) for that? Why are we doing it in the first place? Old and busted is the term. It applies to the whole military, not just their bullshit laws about adultery.
But what they might have learned was that things could get done in a timely basis.
Oh yeah, prototyping is important. If you can't make a prototype you probably can't make a full fledged product. And depending on just what the hell the product is, there might not even be a need for any engineering. Sometimes you really just want a one-shot fire and forget product. But usually it's something that gets developed further, tweaked, customized, used as the starting point for the next project, or maintained for 15 years.
Basically the math is that you must at least fire the bad employees at the same rate you are losing good employees.
Or you could, you know, not hire bad employees? Or better still, how about you not let your top talent be sniped by someone willing to open their purse-strings? But yeah, the dead sea effect is common in the IT industry. Usually it's more of an issue where everyone is constantly jumping ship to another company and that's the only way you can get a pay raise. Which... I think is more prevalent on the west coast than here in the midwest.
A while back this guy fired all the people he had identified as not refilling the coffee pot. At first he was pilloried as being a terrible boss but the remaining employees stood up for him and said he had fired all the selfish asswipes and troublemakers.
Well yeah they said that. They didn't want to get fired!
went online to lookup what the causes could be, what the home remedies (if any) were,
Read it again.
At a guess:
The marketing manager got a pat on the back for tackling a tough problem and got to go back to marketing. The 4 members moved on to a better paying job when they learned the bonuses weren't continuous and they were underpaid. Now the remaining 7 developers are desperately trying to make heads or tails of an undocumented project in a language they don't know and coded like something a fresh grad would output.
But hey, they got the project out the door. Which is a REALLY GOOD first step. Without that step, there is no step #2. But if it's something they want to maintain, a tiny little dash of actual software engineering helps a lot.
"designed some systems" Not management. This is typical engineering work.
"worked together with other people" That's just called work. We live in societies.
"...where he had to direct and/or manage" Yes, that's management.
"explain implementation" Not management.
"tell other people how some pieces of the software should be implemented" Not management, but it's closer. If a manager did something like this they'd be guilty of micromanaging.
And, as many others have pointed out, leading is different than managing. But you're exactly right, when they ask 'why you never managed' you deflect it with answering how much of a leader you are.
but if after 14 years experience in industry you've never held a position of responsibility,
... I develop OBOGS. I'm responsible for keeping fighter pilots from asphyxiating, dying, and crashing multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. It's mission critical. And if that damn warning doesn't go off they have no idea they need to manually switch over to bottled air and everything goes to hell. I sign for that. I'm responsible for it.
Sorry for throwing all professionalism aside, but claiming that anything other than management isn't a "position of responsibility" is bullshit. Fuck you.