i don't disagree, but your point really doesn't have anything to do with mine.
You're bitching about how a really advanced technology is being used for a really stupid purpose. I was just pointing out that Twitter is hardly a unique example...
whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.
Well, the internet was a groundbreaking advance in information technology that has allowed both advanced physics research and 4chan posts to exist in the same medium. But that's the case with any technology -- it will be used for both really intelligent, and really stupid, purposes. A car is a wonderful advancement that allows people to get to and from work, and then get drunk and turn livingrooms into garages.
I wouldn't be embarrassed, but the sexual harassment lawsuits would be unrelenting.
Why? Everytime you think of something sexual in that e-mail to your boss, you'll have to hit backspace. It's a positive feedback system. And I fail to see why this is a problem only for men -- if you knew half the stuff that went through the average woman's brain you'd probably crap a few bricks. Women make up for in detail what men do in quantity in that regard. ^___^ I'm not afraid my boss will find out... I'm worried my mother will.
In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes before you comment on this again.
There are a lot of ways to correct factual errors that don't involve telling the other person to shut up. Your post had a lot of excellent points, but then you crapped all over it with an ad homid attack. Also -- wikipedia? Seriously?
First, Pakistan didn't develop the technology -- they bought or stole it, which is exactly the scenario I put forward as most likely to occur. Here's an official congressional report [PDF] on the issue, instead of a wiki link. Lastly, the Pakistan issue is twenty years old now. While they're not exactly what would be called an island of stability -- if they were going to do something stupid they'd have done it by now. China isn't "for hire" by terrorists -- Their interest in Pakistan is as a strategic hedge against India.
So no... Pakistan is being watched, but it's not high on the list.
It was true fifty years ago, and it's still true today: If I have access to the hardware, you're screwed. And thus far, there have been precious few non-trivial applications that have been unexploitable remotely at some point. Systems are amazingly complex and full of flaws because almost all modern software was built with security as an after-thought. The only difference these days between a "secure" system and an insecure one is that the secure system hasn't had its flaws discovered yet.
Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works. The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff. Hang him.
*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb. You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly. Anyone who studies physics and engineering could build most any reactor design. The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.
It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device. Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction. If this is not perfectly timed, it's a dud. There is little danger of a country that uses nuclear reactors suddenly leap-frogging to that technology. As well, there are many ways of detecting such research and the US and its allies are constantly conducting surveillance to identify and confirm those factors. That said, such surveillance resources have diminished since the cold war ended.
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology. This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly. Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research. North Korea and India, on the other hand, are another can of worms entirely. India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future. North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia.
Possibly documentation, but only if it is something that you, your coworkers, or your eventual replacement would use in the future. (IE documenting the structure of an unclear config file, not writing a detailed tutorial.)
Actually, writing up documentation is a great way to contribute to open source. If written in a generic fashion, it can be released to other government organizations (and the general public). There's plenty of other ways to advocate open source that are work-related as well.
Maybe it's just the person you are, but I think you're flat out wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm speaking from a decade of experience in the field.
Putting your head down and just doing your job instead of making a persuasive argument and showing the benefits is simply pathetic
He made his argument. He lost. Move on. Pressing the issue will only irritate management. It's not business-critical and it's not impacting his professional reputation. If it was, then appeal to upper management and/or write a CYA letter informing them of the consequences if your professional recommendation is not followed.
You admit that you don't quibble over little stuff. This is pretty minor -- his job is IT and while his aims are noble he hasn't been asked to represent his employer. That's somebody else's job. You have to recognize the limitations of your job function and work within them -- that's not putting your head down, that's being a professional and doing your job.
I had the idea to put up a Web page stating that we 'use the following free software to save tax dollars,' as a way to help spread the word about open source software, but management calls this an 'endorsement.' A mirror server is a no-go as well. I'm certainly not a talented enough programmer to help with development.
First, if your manager says don't put up a web page, then don't. End of discussion. Yes he might be wrong. In fact, it's likely he's wrong. But you have a job to do -- don't risk it by challenging your boss. It's enough you're saving taxpayer dollars doing that, even if it isn't acknowledged (Thank You).
Second... I don't want my tax dollars being used for a mirror server. Plenty of other people do that already, and even if they didn't, we have bittorrent.
Oh come on. You're a professional (right?), you should know better than to say this kind of crap. You know what your problem is?
His "problem" is nothing more than the fact that a new operating system was just released to the public with a flotilla of new technologies which few people thoroughly understand. He is understandably unwilling to implement or allow a technology to run on his network that is not well-understood by himself or any of his staff. As to assigning "responsibilities it wasn't designed to" -- that's the working definition of most IT jobs. The right tool for the job is the tool you have that gets the job done.
Next time, use more exclamation points. It makes you sound more... professional.
Am I missing something? Is this a ridiculous strech just to bash Microsoft or something? How is this an important read?
The entire idea of scanning for signatures is what's ridiculous. This broken model of ring-based security is what's ridiculous. Buy into those ideas and yeah, it would make sense then to exclude certain file types.
What's needed is something like Tripwire, built into a bootable flash drive and Microsoft (and other vendors) releasing hashes of their files. But it's easier to do reactive security than proactive security -- and by easier I mean shoving the costs onto the consumers. At least then we could verify the integrity of the operating system and boot files independently of the software on the computer -- which is easily compromised. All this talk about a TCB has turned out to be just that -- talk. It hasn't helped system security one iota.
We have enough raw labor resources in this country to meet any technology demand. Don't blame the culture or this lame-ass idea that people are afraid of being labelled nerds. If I made six figures, they could call me the pink tutu goddess of networking and I wouldn't mind.
The problem is that businesses don't want to pay highly-trained and specialized workers more. They've tried outsourcing, right-sizing, downsizing, globalization, and every other way possible to screw people out of wages. And curiously enough, we keep coming back to the same problem -- no matter how big you make the labor pool, the required training and experience required to do these jobs demands a certain minimum income. Keynesian economics, I'm looking at you -- your adherents continue to believe that if they keep expanding the labor pool they'll reach a price point they want. Well, good luck with that...
... Aluminum overheats at nothing. Your radiator goes on an aluminum engine and chances are good the engine's got a hole in it now too. Berate cast iron all you want, but at least it could handle a cheap component failing without exploding.
Could this discovery be developed to make cryogenically preserving people work? As it is right now, the cells rupture during the freezing process -- if the cells remained intact, reviving them would become possible.
Slashdot Mirror
In hindsight, maybe I should have said "my mother was a lesbian, you insensitive clod!"
Don't you mean both moms? O_o
In my experience, men are far more visual than women are.
Typical man... thinking that sex is only about what you can see.
I've met a few, but I must admit we didn't really discuss their sex lives.
^_^ Yes, well, babydykes are a different story.
I just figured that being "trained" would involve... well, more sub and less dom.
My nickname has nothing to do with that. Besides, curious as I am, we're too poor to get into that much. :P
i don't disagree, but your point really doesn't have anything to do with mine.
You're bitching about how a really advanced technology is being used for a really stupid purpose. I was just pointing out that Twitter is hardly a unique example...
From your username, I'd have assumed it was the other way around.
From your comment, it's obvious you've never met a lesbian. Well, now you have.
Until you automatically think CTRL+Enter in your mind, then you're screwed!
Control. Enter. hmmmmmmmmmm.... (smiles sweetly) I think that when I'm around my girlfriend all the time.
whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.
Well, the internet was a groundbreaking advance in information technology that has allowed both advanced physics research and 4chan posts to exist in the same medium. But that's the case with any technology -- it will be used for both really intelligent, and really stupid, purposes. A car is a wonderful advancement that allows people to get to and from work, and then get drunk and turn livingrooms into garages.
*shrug*
I wouldn't be embarrassed, but the sexual harassment lawsuits would be unrelenting.
Why? Everytime you think of something sexual in that e-mail to your boss, you'll have to hit backspace. It's a positive feedback system. And I fail to see why this is a problem only for men -- if you knew half the stuff that went through the average woman's brain you'd probably crap a few bricks. Women make up for in detail what men do in quantity in that regard. ^___^ I'm not afraid my boss will find out... I'm worried my mother will.
I really boobies don't know boobies what you are boobies talking about. boobies
Dude, press pause on the Slayers episode before posting. :P
By the way, I don't live under the fridge, you insensitive dyke! X_X
True dat. I am insensitive when it comes to the special needs population of slashdot...
In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes before you comment on this again.
There are a lot of ways to correct factual errors that don't involve telling the other person to shut up. Your post had a lot of excellent points, but then you crapped all over it with an ad homid attack. Also -- wikipedia? Seriously?
First, Pakistan didn't develop the technology -- they bought or stole it, which is exactly the scenario I put forward as most likely to occur. Here's an official congressional report [PDF] on the issue, instead of a wiki link. Lastly, the Pakistan issue is twenty years old now. While they're not exactly what would be called an island of stability -- if they were going to do something stupid they'd have done it by now. China isn't "for hire" by terrorists -- Their interest in Pakistan is as a strategic hedge against India.
So no... Pakistan is being watched, but it's not high on the list.
It was true fifty years ago, and it's still true today: If I have access to the hardware, you're screwed. And thus far, there have been precious few non-trivial applications that have been unexploitable remotely at some point. Systems are amazingly complex and full of flaws because almost all modern software was built with security as an after-thought. The only difference these days between a "secure" system and an insecure one is that the secure system hasn't had its flaws discovered yet.
Oh no, he's helping the terrorists by showing them what a reactor looks like and how it works. The Iranian people can use that to build 100billion teratons of nukes to kill stuff. Hang him.
*blinks* You can't use a nuclear reactor to build a conventional nuclear device -- the best you'll get is a dirty bomb. You can use a breeder reactor to create fissionable material, but breeder reactors are also useful because they can take many different kinds of fuel and produce power from it, whereas conventional reactors can only use fissile uranium and it degrades to useless and highly toxic byproducts relatively quickly. Anyone who studies physics and engineering could build most any reactor design. The math and engineering is well-understood and not technically challenging for a well-funded organization.
It requires exceptionally precise and expensive equipment and a lot of technical know-how to develop several key components to creating a conventional nuclear device. Specifically, the critical function is how to model the compression shock wave in the fissile material that begins the chain reaction. If this is not perfectly timed, it's a dud. There is little danger of a country that uses nuclear reactors suddenly leap-frogging to that technology. As well, there are many ways of detecting such research and the US and its allies are constantly conducting surveillance to identify and confirm those factors. That said, such surveillance resources have diminished since the cold war ended.
The biggest risk is a rogue nation acquiring detailed schematics on how to build a warhead from a country that already possesses the technology. This would allow them to bypass the development and testing stages and move directly to production, which is much more difficult to prevent and many aspects of the production process can be accomplished covertly. Right now, Russia and former USSR member-states are the only plausible sources for this scenario being realized.
Iran and most of the middle-east, for all its bravado and sabre-rattling lacks the infrastructure to make a serious attempt at nuclear weapons research. North Korea and India, on the other hand, are another can of worms entirely. India has the raw resources, but it's unlikely for cultural and economic reasons that they will develop a nuclear weapons program in the immediate future. North Korea, however lacks those inhibitions and there's been a lot of evidence they have an active weapons program -- and ties to Russia.
Possibly documentation, but only if it is something that you, your coworkers, or your eventual replacement would use in the future. (IE documenting the structure of an unclear config file, not writing a detailed tutorial.)
Actually, writing up documentation is a great way to contribute to open source. If written in a generic fashion, it can be released to other government organizations (and the general public). There's plenty of other ways to advocate open source that are work-related as well.
Maybe it's just the person you are, but I think you're flat out wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm speaking from a decade of experience in the field.
Putting your head down and just doing your job instead of making a persuasive argument and showing the benefits is simply pathetic
He made his argument. He lost. Move on. Pressing the issue will only irritate management. It's not business-critical and it's not impacting his professional reputation. If it was, then appeal to upper management and/or write a CYA letter informing them of the consequences if your professional recommendation is not followed.
You admit that you don't quibble over little stuff. This is pretty minor -- his job is IT and while his aims are noble he hasn't been asked to represent his employer. That's somebody else's job. You have to recognize the limitations of your job function and work within them -- that's not putting your head down, that's being a professional and doing your job.
I had the idea to put up a Web page stating that we 'use the following free software to save tax dollars,' as a way to help spread the word about open source software, but management calls this an 'endorsement.' A mirror server is a no-go as well. I'm certainly not a talented enough programmer to help with development.
First, if your manager says don't put up a web page, then don't. End of discussion. Yes he might be wrong. In fact, it's likely he's wrong. But you have a job to do -- don't risk it by challenging your boss. It's enough you're saving taxpayer dollars doing that, even if it isn't acknowledged (Thank You).
Second... I don't want my tax dollars being used for a mirror server. Plenty of other people do that already, and even if they didn't, we have bittorrent.
Oh come on. You're a professional (right?), you should know better than to say this kind of crap. You know what your problem is?
His "problem" is nothing more than the fact that a new operating system was just released to the public with a flotilla of new technologies which few people thoroughly understand. He is understandably unwilling to implement or allow a technology to run on his network that is not well-understood by himself or any of his staff. As to assigning "responsibilities it wasn't designed to" -- that's the working definition of most IT jobs. The right tool for the job is the tool you have that gets the job done.
Next time, use more exclamation points. It makes you sound more... professional.
OpenBSD uses the ring-based security of modern processors to great effect.
True, but then OpenBSD was designed with security in mind from the ground up.
Where are you working where business do not pay more?
That would be just about anywhere else in the country right now except New York and a certain small area in Washington.
Am I missing something? Is this a ridiculous strech just to bash Microsoft or something? How is this an important read?
The entire idea of scanning for signatures is what's ridiculous. This broken model of ring-based security is what's ridiculous. Buy into those ideas and yeah, it would make sense then to exclude certain file types.
What's needed is something like Tripwire, built into a bootable flash drive and Microsoft (and other vendors) releasing hashes of their files. But it's easier to do reactive security than proactive security -- and by easier I mean shoving the costs onto the consumers. At least then we could verify the integrity of the operating system and boot files independently of the software on the computer -- which is easily compromised. All this talk about a TCB has turned out to be just that -- talk. It hasn't helped system security one iota.
We have enough raw labor resources in this country to meet any technology demand. Don't blame the culture or this lame-ass idea that people are afraid of being labelled nerds. If I made six figures, they could call me the pink tutu goddess of networking and I wouldn't mind.
The problem is that businesses don't want to pay highly-trained and specialized workers more. They've tried outsourcing, right-sizing, downsizing, globalization, and every other way possible to screw people out of wages. And curiously enough, we keep coming back to the same problem -- no matter how big you make the labor pool, the required training and experience required to do these jobs demands a certain minimum income. Keynesian economics, I'm looking at you -- your adherents continue to believe that if they keep expanding the labor pool they'll reach a price point they want. Well, good luck with that...
Men are strange, aren't they?
*sniffs* Yes, yes you are.
Switch to tea. Sorted.
mostly aluminum.
... Aluminum overheats at nothing. Your radiator goes on an aluminum engine and chances are good the engine's got a hole in it now too. Berate cast iron all you want, but at least it could handle a cheap component failing without exploding.
Could this discovery be developed to make cryogenically preserving people work? As it is right now, the cells rupture during the freezing process -- if the cells remained intact, reviving them would become possible.