Don't let all the negative comments bug you, it is people that just wish they had done it instead. You get these types of comments all the time whenever something interesting hits the front page.
This argument assumes that those coal power plants will always be there. You don't think there will ever be cleaner technologies used? If you base your buying decision for a car that will last you hopefully around 10 years on the power generation currently in use, than you are missing the improvements that will happen to power generation over time. What is to say that you couldn't just cover that electric car with solar panels and just leave it charge while you are in work?
When I have seen these trucks come by work (as I am out smoking) I have always marveled at the fact that my "security conscious" coworkers just simply trust that the truck isn't just making shredding noises and quietly storing everything unshredded. This is no different than trusting that Dropbox isn't peeking. The trucks in this area have a lifting device that connects to the shred bin, pulls it up into the truck, and hides everything being done inside. I am not trying to sound paranoid, as I am sure Iron Mountain would not ruin their reputation in this way, but it is an assumption that the truck is really shredding.
Also, as the power generation moves to cleaner sources (hydro, nuclear, whatever), the electric car automatically gets cleaner, while the gasoline car stays just as dirty...
When the disk is non functional, degaussing works great on hard drives. Though you should not degauss a hard drive that works as it whipes the hard disk parameters from it and makes it completely unusable.
With MS DHCP, you can even have the DHCP server verify if the address is available before handing it out. This way if someone decides to put a dynamic address in as a static address, it won't cause problems on the network.
I'm quite confident that if the Fukushima reactors had been replaced with ABWRs, ESBWRs, ACR-1000s, or AP-1000s, we would not be having the present crisis.
This was demonstrated, several other reactors in the area safely shut down.
Exactly. I pointed out above that this was not the only reactor in the area that was hit, it just happens to be that this is the oldest plant in the area. The newer plants were much more passively safe and shut down without issue when the earthquake hit.
You do realize that this plant is one of many plants in that area? This is one plant that had catastrophic failures while several others shutdown without problems. The newer plants proved their ability to withstand this earthquake/tsunami, but of course, nuclear is unsafe... This is a very bad situation, but what should be pointed out is that this was an expected failure mode, and had procedures for dealing with it. Had this plant been replaced as was recommended repeatedly in the past, it most likely would have been able to withstand everything that happened without the problems, but you can continue bashing nuclear for the failures of capitalism if you feel like it, I am sure it makes you feel better.
What is the gramatical difference between combusts and combustion? Are you really arguing that it should say combustion when the quote clearly has combust in it.
The MPs friend took many CDs, copied song(s) off of them and onto a new disc, commonly called a compilation. (S)he then went and gave the copied CD to the MP. This is distribution of a copy of a copyrighted work. It was not an original disc that was "loaned" therefore, it is infringement.
Google now has responded with a blog post, The Truth about Google Apps and FISMA:
In a breathless blog post, Microsoft recently suggested we intentionally misled the U.S. government over our compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Microsoft claims we filed a separate FISMA application for Google Apps for Government, then leaps to the conclusion that Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified. These allegations are false. We take the federal government’s security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What’s more, we’ve been open and transparent with the government, and it’s irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.
Let’s look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.
This was reflected in yesterday’s Congressional testimony from the GSA: “...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the ‘Apps for Government’ product offering.”
FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization—or re-certification—of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.
We’ve been very transparent about our FISMA authorization. Our documentation has always been readily available for any government agency to review, and dozens of officials from a range of departments and agencies have availed themselves of the opportunity to learn more about how we keep our customers’ data secure.
We’ll continue to update our documentation to reflect new capabilities in Google Apps. This continuous innovation is an important reason government customers select our service. We’re confident that Microsoft will also re-authorize their applications on a regular basis, once they receive FISMA authorization. We look forward to continuing to work with governments around the world to bring them the many benefits of cloud computing.
Posted by Eran Feigenbaum, Director of Security, Google Enterprise
And this whole thing is about Google calling MS liars for saying that Google wasn't FISMA when they actually are.
Google now has responded with a blog post, The Truth about Google Apps and FISMA:
In a breathless blog post, Microsoft recently suggested we intentionally misled the U.S. government over our compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Microsoft claims we filed a separate FISMA application for Google Apps for Government, then leaps to the conclusion that Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified. These allegations are false. We take the federal government’s security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What’s more, we’ve been open and transparent with the government, and it’s irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.
Let’s look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.
This was reflected in yesterday’s Congressional testimony from the GSA: “...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the ‘Apps for Government’ product offering.”
FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization—or re-certification—of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.
We’ve been very transparent about our FISMA authorization. Our documentation has always been readily available for any government agency to review, and dozens of officials from a range of departments and agencies have availed themselves of the opportunity to learn more about how we keep our customers’ data secure.
We’ll continue to update our documentation to reflect new capabilities in Google Apps. This continuous innovation is an important reason government customers select our service. We’re confident that Microsoft will also re-authorize their applications on a regular basis, once they receive FISMA authorization. We look forward to continuing to work with governments around the world to bring them the many benefits of cloud computing.
Posted by Eran Feigenbaum, Director of Security, Google Enterprise
and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit.
Bullshit. Google came forward and said that they made a mistake, that is what started the whole thing. Germany then tried to demand the data, which would have been illegal for them to obtain. Google is the one who came forward saying "oops, looks like we collected this data, we would like to destroy it as it was not meant to be collected" the German government wouldn't let them destroy the data, it was too valuable to them.
Google flat out indicated "oops, we didn't mean to collect payload data, it was a misconfiguration" and destroyed it upon the request of at least Ireland.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let all the negative comments bug you, it is people that just wish they had done it instead. You get these types of comments all the time whenever something interesting hits the front page.
Good work, we need more engineers like you.
Isn't that kind of along the lines of shooting the neighbors dog that comes into your yard to leave a steaming one in your roses?
Not that I would ever do that...but I have heard of many of these neighborly disputes.
This argument assumes that those coal power plants will always be there. You don't think there will ever be cleaner technologies used? If you base your buying decision for a car that will last you hopefully around 10 years on the power generation currently in use, than you are missing the improvements that will happen to power generation over time. What is to say that you couldn't just cover that electric car with solar panels and just leave it charge while you are in work?
When I have seen these trucks come by work (as I am out smoking) I have always marveled at the fact that my "security conscious" coworkers just simply trust that the truck isn't just making shredding noises and quietly storing everything unshredded. This is no different than trusting that Dropbox isn't peeking. The trucks in this area have a lifting device that connects to the shred bin, pulls it up into the truck, and hides everything being done inside. I am not trying to sound paranoid, as I am sure Iron Mountain would not ruin their reputation in this way, but it is an assumption that the truck is really shredding.
Also, as the power generation moves to cleaner sources (hydro, nuclear, whatever), the electric car automatically gets cleaner, while the gasoline car stays just as dirty...
That picture of you on wikipedia is awful, you should offer them a better one :)
When the disk is non functional, degaussing works great on hard drives. Though you should not degauss a hard drive that works as it whipes the hard disk parameters from it and makes it completely unusable.
http://www.datalinksales.com/degaussers/home.htm
(quick Google, I have no tie to this company.)
With MS DHCP, you can even have the DHCP server verify if the address is available before handing it out. This way if someone decides to put a dynamic address in as a static address, it won't cause problems on the network.
I have heard good things about HTC, and I like my Motorola Droid X. Any other brands I can't personally talk to.
The Motorola phones are very good. I would highly recommend the Droid X.
My Blackberry storm I have sitting on my desk at home shares those features and came out around the same time as the iPhone, why weren't they sued?
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=blackberry+storm&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=5600859454965523342&sa=X&ei=GdKtTfaYBqmx0QGS2KSuCw&ved=0CEkQ8wIwBA#
The newer multitouch trackpads use a two finger click as a right click (and two finger drag as scroll...)
I'm quite confident that if the Fukushima reactors had been replaced with ABWRs, ESBWRs, ACR-1000s, or AP-1000s, we would not be having the present crisis.
This was demonstrated, several other reactors in the area safely shut down.
Exactly. I pointed out above that this was not the only reactor in the area that was hit, it just happens to be that this is the oldest plant in the area. The newer plants were much more passively safe and shut down without issue when the earthquake hit.
You do realize that this plant is one of many plants in that area? This is one plant that had catastrophic failures while several others shutdown without problems. The newer plants proved their ability to withstand this earthquake/tsunami, but of course, nuclear is unsafe... This is a very bad situation, but what should be pointed out is that this was an expected failure mode, and had procedures for dealing with it. Had this plant been replaced as was recommended repeatedly in the past, it most likely would have been able to withstand everything that happened without the problems, but you can continue bashing nuclear for the failures of capitalism if you feel like it, I am sure it makes you feel better.
But but but, that's not what I learned in Sim City 2k...
What is the gramatical difference between combusts and combustion? Are you really arguing that it should say combustion when the quote clearly has combust in it.
How'd you get such a low one than if not for white knighting? :)
That page should be sorted by % of GDP, which matters much more than the gross spending.
Can we also get in line to be groped by cute female TSA agents? That would be great at least for the guys.
Also, the loaned CD was a copy of songs from many CDs burned to a compilation CD. It was not an original CD.
The MPs friend took many CDs, copied song(s) off of them and onto a new disc, commonly called a compilation. (S)he then went and gave the copied CD to the MP. This is distribution of a copy of a copyrighted work. It was not an original disc that was "loaned" therefore, it is infringement.
According to the GSA it does.
FTFA
Google now has responded with a blog post, The Truth about Google Apps and FISMA:
In a breathless blog post, Microsoft recently suggested we intentionally misled the U.S. government over our compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Microsoft claims we filed a separate FISMA application for Google Apps for Government, then leaps to the conclusion that Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified. These allegations are false.
We take the federal government’s security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What’s more, we’ve been open and transparent with the government, and it’s irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.
Let’s look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.
This was reflected in yesterday’s Congressional testimony from the GSA: “...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the ‘Apps for Government’ product offering.”
FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization—or re-certification—of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.
We’ve been very transparent about our FISMA authorization. Our documentation has always been readily available for any government agency to review, and dozens of officials from a range of departments and agencies have availed themselves of the opportunity to learn more about how we keep our customers’ data secure.
We’ll continue to update our documentation to reflect new capabilities in Google Apps. This continuous innovation is an important reason government customers select our service. We’re confident that Microsoft will also re-authorize their applications on a regular basis, once they receive FISMA authorization. We look forward to continuing to work with governments around the world to bring them the many benefits of cloud computing.
Posted by Eran Feigenbaum, Director of Security, Google Enterprise
And this whole thing is about Google calling MS liars for saying that Google wasn't FISMA when they actually are.
Google now has responded with a blog post, The Truth about Google Apps and FISMA:
In a breathless blog post, Microsoft recently suggested we intentionally misled the U.S. government over our compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Microsoft claims we filed a separate FISMA application for Google Apps for Government, then leaps to the conclusion that Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified. These allegations are false.
We take the federal government’s security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What’s more, we’ve been open and transparent with the government, and it’s irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.
Let’s look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.
This was reflected in yesterday’s Congressional testimony from the GSA: “...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the ‘Apps for Government’ product offering.”
FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization—or re-certification—of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.
We’ve been very transparent about our FISMA authorization. Our documentation has always been readily available for any government agency to review, and dozens of officials from a range of departments and agencies have availed themselves of the opportunity to learn more about how we keep our customers’ data secure.
We’ll continue to update our documentation to reflect new capabilities in Google Apps. This continuous innovation is an important reason government customers select our service. We’re confident that Microsoft will also re-authorize their applications on a regular basis, once they receive FISMA authorization. We look forward to continuing to work with governments around the world to bring them the many benefits of cloud computing.
Posted by Eran Feigenbaum, Director of Security, Google Enterprise
and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit.
Bullshit. Google came forward and said that they made a mistake, that is what started the whole thing. Germany then tried to demand the data, which would have been illegal for them to obtain. Google is the one who came forward saying "oops, looks like we collected this data, we would like to destroy it as it was not meant to be collected" the German government wouldn't let them destroy the data, it was too valuable to them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/22/urnidgns002570f3005978d80025774a00595fb-idUS226627768520100622
Google flat out indicated "oops, we didn't mean to collect payload data, it was a misconfiguration" and destroyed it upon the request of at least Ireland.