But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
In which case the United States has never had Freedom of Speech, because there have always been some limits. Please tell everyone that the First Amendment is a lie.
The bullies should not be blamed for the girl's death either. What they did was bad. I don't defend it at all. But suicide is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of it.
Punch somebody, they fall backwards and break their neck. Death is not a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" of a simple fistfight, but you can still be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
look at their facebook profile and notice that their daughter is being harassed and bullied for her being totally shitfaced at age 14 requires a body guard and 24/7 monitoring?
Look at whose Facebook profile? This had nothing to do with the girl's account.
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully.
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed.
Armed? You mean like a duel in a Western? My favorites star Gary Cooper.
If it gets to the point of armed, I say screw the "fair fight" nonsense and just treat it like a war. The only object is to win. Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
I was not puking up drunk when I was 14. Neither were the other kids I hung out with. I don't consider that kind of behavior "kids be[ing] kids". At all.
My, aren't we squeaky clean. Puking up drunk at 14, or any age, is not something to be encouraged, but it's a lot more forgivable than bullying or harassment.
Facebook was not the negligent party that let that child get that drunk to begin with. You can yell all you want about kids sneaking around and getting away with stuff, but it's the parents' responsibility to mind the child nonetheless.
This is a minor variant on "blame the victim": you're blaming the victim's parents. What about the parents of the scumbags that posted the video?
italy has the option to block them much like china
And Facebook has the option to block Italian IP ranges if they don't want to deal with Italian law for their Italian accounts. Facebook does business in Italy. This is not the same as saying that a website in country X has a responsibility to block people in country Y who want to read it. You can't make billions, partly from people in Italy, and claim you're not doing business there.
I kind of agree (though one shouldn't get too starry eyed about the past). However the poster wrote "we never learned how to work together". He also mentioned our federal system of government, which we've always had.
Don't you see the flaw in that attitude? Consider that your Iranian counterpart is taking exactly the same attitude. Damage the US economy and infrastructure to make invasion harder. Develop nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.
I wish we could go back in time and not get involved in that idiotic coup to ensure BP's profits (Truman refused to do it). Unfortunately we can't. Since 1979 there has been a lot of (thankfully) low level hostilities between the US and Iran. Stuxnet, while one can debate its effectiveness, was a very low level "hostility" (no one hurt) and at least intended to serve a decent purpose.
The Iraq war probably did 100x as much as Stuxnet to make the Iranians leery. "Gee, the Great Satan will invade countries without any good reason". I can't blame them for coming to that conclusion - I have too and I'm an American! However you also shouldn't get too US-centric. There are plenty of reasons besides the US why countries might want to develop nukes. Israel has them, and whatever you think of Israeli policies, nothing the US can do would make them get rid of the nukes. India and Pakistan are the most likely place for a little nuclear war, and they developed nukes for reasons that have nothing to do with the US or Israel. Nukes are also a prestige item (personally I'd recommend a Rolex instead). Not everything Iran does is in response to the US.
air-gap-by-default is better in most circumstances
Air gap as opposed to what? I'm unclear.
I was arguing for complete disconnection from the Internet, which ShanghaiBill was arguing was both impractical for a power plant (all the info they have to share, monitoring substations etc.) and unnecessary (manual intervention required for potentially destructive operations). It sounds like what you're saying is that it's practically impossible to have simple manual control requirements for everything in a chemical plant. Maybe complete Internet connect would be a good idea for a chemical plant but not a power plant?
I can tell you that when I worked as sysadmin responsible for about 20% of the network operations of one of the biggest names in the defense industry, they were more concerned with passing their ISO 9001 audit than they were their government security audit -- and the latter was where they were in the worse shape, by far. Take away from that what you will, but I know it made me sick at my stomach, and is one of the reasons I got out of there.
That's plain old scary. I don't know whether they don't understand network security (a little hard to believe) or are just lax. The DoD used to be serious about security audits, and I know that post-9/11 it became much harder to get a security clearance. It makes no sense, but then again it is a government operation.
VonBraun and his crew deliberately searched out American forces to surrender to
Yes, but so did many others (it sure beat surrendering to the Soviets or getting shot by the SS). However he and his crew were brought to the US as part of Operation Paperclip
Russia can easily become an enemy of China. Even when they were both fraternal Communist states, they had border disputes.
They were "fraternal Communist states" for only about 15 years. The relationship fell apart in the 60's. Back during the bad old days of the Cold War in the 80's, NATO was always worried about the Soviet bloc forces facing the rest of Europe, but the USSR actually had more forces devoted to the Chinese border.
If you disconnect everything, and have to send out a truck to make an adjustment at a substation, then you have a problem when there is a big storm and not enough trucks.
Makes sense, but I still have to wonder how it was done before the Internet. More trucks, or was there an interim approach that used a communication link other than the Internet?
It is also common in coal/gas/nuke plants to require manual intervention to shutdown a generator, or even reduce the power into the "brown-out" zone.
Sensible and good to know, but let me play armchair terrorist. Admittedly this scenario is much more far fetched (if possible at all) but I wonder if playing with the automatic adjustments would let you mess up the stability of the grid.
What would happen if word went out to power stations to disconnect from the Internet? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think it's possible to operate like that because a) the grid was around long before the Internet and b) Internet connectivity is not always the most reliable thing.
Lastly, while the systems that you've worked on may be well run, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're all well run. Unfortunately computer security is something that can go to hell in a real hurry if not continuously well maintained. Sometimes I wonder if using the Internet for anything more than news and blogs was a good idea.
Let me answer that with a question: where's the evidence to the original assertion, that the Chinese have stolen weapon designs? There is nothing conclusive, and so it is propaganda and beating on the war-drums. As usual.
Since you like answering questions with questions, I'll play too. What would qualify as "conclusive" in a case like this? Is it your contention that newspapers should only report things that are "conclusive" as opposed to credible? A lot of the news would be delayed by a decade. Where is your argument or evidence that it isn't true? Finally, while reports from government sources as cited by the WSJ are far from my idea of proven, should I find them less credible than the pseudonymously posted assertion (without citation or even argument) of a random person on the Internet?
No, I used English instead of mathematical notation, and the definition of "equate" includes "to treat, represent, or regard as... comparable".
Beyond the pedantry (another word with multiple definitions) of debating the exact wording of a Slashdot post (what, no typos?), I don't see how the two have anything substantial to do with each other. If tenuously they do, it's like listing complaints against your neighbor as a) throwing grenades through your window and, b) not returning the garden hose you lent him.
And you're an uninformed doofus. As a guy responsible for a SCADA system I'll tell you that one of the first things I wanted to do was disconnect all external connectivity. That was when I got hired and before I understood all of the intricacies of what the requirements are.
Sounds like you started out as an uninformed doofus too.
We have to share real time data with all of our neighboring utilities as per federal law. Marketers and accountants need access to data to make decisions in real time. Federal agencies such as WECC demand that we provide them with things like load forecast data, spinning reserve schedules, tie-line outages, etc so that they can perform real time studies.
1. This may be a naive question, but it sounds like all that data is stuff that is an output from the actual SCADA part of your plant. Cut a few wires and you can convert a two-way link into a one-way link. Read all you want but you can't control the plant from an external network. Would that work?
2. How was this stuff handled before the Internet?
3. If worse comes to worse maybe we need a WAN other than the Internet for this type of stuff.
Our own government is really creating the largest holes that we have.
Sounds like the stuff the government requires serves a real purpose. Are there cases where that's not true?
It could work since everybody now knows that nerds are funny. Maybe a sequel to the Big Bang Theory. Penny gets a job as a SCADA security engineer, but gets distracted by the bad guys when they deliver a great pair of new shoes to her. Sheldon could easily fix it, but he too is distracted because it's Tuesday and he had French toast instead of oatmeal.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. You should really learn to limit your profanity, as it would set a bad example for any poor child you might have in the future.
To answer that question
But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
In which case the United States has never had Freedom of Speech, because there have always been some limits. Please tell everyone that the First Amendment is a lie.
Not to seem cruel but it looks like the original problem was her being drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14.
Cruel? No. Ridiculously blaming the victim? Yes.
If you've never done anything stupid and embarrassing in front of someone else, then you've obviously lived a completely solitary life in a cave.
Almost as sick as blaming their death on others "bullying."
Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their actions?
The bullies should not be blamed for the girl's death either. What they did was bad. I don't defend it at all. But suicide is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of it.
Punch somebody, they fall backwards and break their neck. Death is not a "reasonably foreseeable outcome" of a simple fistfight, but you can still be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
look at their facebook profile and notice that their daughter is being harassed and bullied for her being totally shitfaced at age 14 requires a body guard and 24/7 monitoring?
Look at whose Facebook profile? This had nothing to do with the girl's account.
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully.
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed.
Armed? You mean like a duel in a Western? My favorites star Gary Cooper.
If it gets to the point of armed, I say screw the "fair fight" nonsense and just treat it like a war. The only object is to win. Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
I was not puking up drunk when I was 14. Neither were the other kids I hung out with. I don't consider that kind of behavior "kids be[ing] kids". At all.
My, aren't we squeaky clean. Puking up drunk at 14, or any age, is not something to be encouraged, but it's a lot more forgivable than bullying or harassment.
Facebook was not the negligent party that let that child get that drunk to begin with. You can yell all you want about kids sneaking around and getting away with stuff, but it's the parents' responsibility to mind the child nonetheless.
This is a minor variant on "blame the victim": you're blaming the victim's parents. What about the parents of the scumbags that posted the video?
you dont believe in freedom of speech?
Not the OP, but I believe in Freedom of Speech. I also know that it doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that you can harass people.
italy has the option to block them much like china
And Facebook has the option to block Italian IP ranges if they don't want to deal with Italian law for their Italian accounts. Facebook does business in Italy. This is not the same as saying that a website in country X has a responsibility to block people in country Y who want to read it. You can't make billions, partly from people in Italy, and claim you're not doing business there.
I kind of agree (though one shouldn't get too starry eyed about the past). However the poster wrote "we never learned how to work together". He also mentioned our federal system of government, which we've always had.
Steal $1000 and you're a criminal. Steal $1B and you're a business leader.
Murder, rape, and theft all violate the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence
And you don't think that the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence put them there believing they were immoral?
Don't you see the flaw in that attitude? Consider that your Iranian counterpart is taking exactly the same attitude. Damage the US economy and infrastructure to make invasion harder. Develop nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.
I wish we could go back in time and not get involved in that idiotic coup to ensure BP's profits (Truman refused to do it). Unfortunately we can't. Since 1979 there has been a lot of (thankfully) low level hostilities between the US and Iran. Stuxnet, while one can debate its effectiveness, was a very low level "hostility" (no one hurt) and at least intended to serve a decent purpose.
The Iraq war probably did 100x as much as Stuxnet to make the Iranians leery. "Gee, the Great Satan will invade countries without any good reason". I can't blame them for coming to that conclusion - I have too and I'm an American! However you also shouldn't get too US-centric. There are plenty of reasons besides the US why countries might want to develop nukes. Israel has them, and whatever you think of Israeli policies, nothing the US can do would make them get rid of the nukes. India and Pakistan are the most likely place for a little nuclear war, and they developed nukes for reasons that have nothing to do with the US or Israel. Nukes are also a prestige item (personally I'd recommend a Rolex instead). Not everything Iran does is in response to the US.
air-gap-by-default is better in most circumstances
Air gap as opposed to what? I'm unclear.
I was arguing for complete disconnection from the Internet, which ShanghaiBill was arguing was both impractical for a power plant (all the info they have to share, monitoring substations etc.) and unnecessary (manual intervention required for potentially destructive operations). It sounds like what you're saying is that it's practically impossible to have simple manual control requirements for everything in a chemical plant. Maybe complete Internet connect would be a good idea for a chemical plant but not a power plant?
I can tell you that when I worked as sysadmin responsible for about 20% of the network operations of one of the biggest names in the defense industry, they were more concerned with passing their ISO 9001 audit than they were their government security audit -- and the latter was where they were in the worse shape, by far. Take away from that what you will, but I know it made me sick at my stomach, and is one of the reasons I got out of there.
That's plain old scary. I don't know whether they don't understand network security (a little hard to believe) or are just lax. The DoD used to be serious about security audits, and I know that post-9/11 it became much harder to get a security clearance. It makes no sense, but then again it is a government operation.
VonBraun and his crew deliberately searched out American forces to surrender to
Yes, but so did many others (it sure beat surrendering to the Soviets or getting shot by the SS). However he and his crew were brought to the US as part of Operation Paperclip
Russia can easily become an enemy of China. Even when they were both fraternal Communist states, they had border disputes.
They were "fraternal Communist states" for only about 15 years. The relationship fell apart in the 60's. Back during the bad old days of the Cold War in the 80's, NATO was always worried about the Soviet bloc forces facing the rest of Europe, but the USSR actually had more forces devoted to the Chinese border.
If you disconnect everything, and have to send out a truck to make an adjustment at a substation, then you have a problem when there is a big storm and not enough trucks.
Makes sense, but I still have to wonder how it was done before the Internet. More trucks, or was there an interim approach that used a communication link other than the Internet?
It is also common in coal/gas/nuke plants to require manual intervention to shutdown a generator, or even reduce the power into the "brown-out" zone.
Sensible and good to know, but let me play armchair terrorist. Admittedly this scenario is much more far fetched (if possible at all) but I wonder if playing with the automatic adjustments would let you mess up the stability of the grid.
What would happen if word went out to power stations to disconnect from the Internet? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think it's possible to operate like that because a) the grid was around long before the Internet and b) Internet connectivity is not always the most reliable thing.
Lastly, while the systems that you've worked on may be well run, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're all well run. Unfortunately computer security is something that can go to hell in a real hurry if not continuously well maintained. Sometimes I wonder if using the Internet for anything more than news and blogs was a good idea.
Let me answer that with a question: where's the evidence to the original assertion, that the Chinese have stolen weapon designs? There is nothing conclusive, and so it is propaganda and beating on the war-drums. As usual.
Since you like answering questions with questions, I'll play too. What would qualify as "conclusive" in a case like this? Is it your contention that newspapers should only report things that are "conclusive" as opposed to credible? A lot of the news would be delayed by a decade. Where is your argument or evidence that it isn't true? Finally, while reports from government sources as cited by the WSJ are far from my idea of proven, should I find them less credible than the pseudonymously posted assertion (without citation or even argument) of a random person on the Internet?
You supposed an Equation where none existed.
No, I used English instead of mathematical notation, and the definition of "equate" includes "to treat, represent, or regard as ... comparable".
Beyond the pedantry (another word with multiple definitions) of debating the exact wording of a Slashdot post (what, no typos?), I don't see how the two have anything substantial to do with each other. If tenuously they do, it's like listing complaints against your neighbor as a) throwing grenades through your window and, b) not returning the garden hose you lent him.
We never learned how to work together, our country is even set up at 50 nominally independent states.
That explains why the US never got beyond being a 3rd rate agricultural colony.
And you're an uninformed doofus. As a guy responsible for a SCADA system I'll tell you that one of the first things I wanted to do was disconnect all external connectivity. That was when I got hired and before I understood all of the intricacies of what the requirements are.
Sounds like you started out as an uninformed doofus too.
We have to share real time data with all of our neighboring utilities as per federal law. Marketers and accountants need access to data to make decisions in real time. Federal agencies such as WECC demand that we provide them with things like load forecast data, spinning reserve schedules, tie-line outages, etc so that they can perform real time studies.
1. This may be a naive question, but it sounds like all that data is stuff that is an output from the actual SCADA part of your plant. Cut a few wires and you can convert a two-way link into a one-way link. Read all you want but you can't control the plant from an external network. Would that work?
2. How was this stuff handled before the Internet?
3. If worse comes to worse maybe we need a WAN other than the Internet for this type of stuff.
Our own government is really creating the largest holes that we have.
Sounds like the stuff the government requires serves a real purpose. Are there cases where that's not true?
Why hasn't someone made a sitcom about this yet?
It could work since everybody now knows that nerds are funny. Maybe a sequel to the Big Bang Theory. Penny gets a job as a SCADA security engineer, but gets distracted by the bad guys when they deliver a great pair of new shoes to her. Sheldon could easily fix it, but he too is distracted because it's Tuesday and he had French toast instead of oatmeal.