... unless your little town decides to do it themselves. And they can, if they have the right supervision (maybe you). They can scale this down to size and it will cost only 1% of the cost of a city with a ~1,000,000. And the city can do it without the outrageous rates. It will help attract businesses to your little town. If the neighboring little towns also do it, then it will help them keep up.
Back when loading a big spreadsheet took a full minute, cutting that in half to 30 seconds with a new PC really meant something. Now days that spreadsheet loads in 1/4 second. Who GAF if they can cut that to 1/8 second.
OTOH, my new 3.6 GHz quad core quad channel 64GB can easiily handle multiple VMs at the same time.
What you are doing with the PC matters. What MOST people are doing isn't much more than reading email from Aunt Sally, checking if their stocks are going up, and surfing for new recipes. Office computers are a little busier.
Bulb "types" are still made around what incandescent happens to be. LEDs do not fit well into these models as the technology is different. The very same shape can do a variety of radiation angles in LED that incandescent could never do.
We need to be encouraging people to use, and manufacturers to make, bulbs that are more efficiently used. Dictating a radiation angle as part of efficiency is not the right way. Saying a given LED is equivalent to a Type A incandescent bulb just gets people to do things inefficiently as they have done before.
Intentionally replacing an incandescent bulb is still a design decision. Part of the waste of incandescent is the wide radiation pattern. That's why they do make spot light variations. And they should make LEDs like that, too. But with LEDs, it's easier to make spot lights.
"Also companies fall out because they don't have the full light distribution required. For example, with an 'A lamp,' you have to have, to get the full Energy Star standard, 170 degrees of radial flux or light distribution all around the product at generally the same intensity all the way around," he added.
This is just stupid. The light distribution needed should be a matter of application. Efficient lighting also means not wasting light in directions that do not need to be illuminated. Instead of the 170 degree standard, the bulb should be quantified to what degree of lighting coverage it does achieve, and must be marketed accurately.
I have a concern that is based on deficiencies in Amazon Web Services. The AWS model lacks certain abilities that I am looking for in another cloud provider. But I am concerned that the operational model behind the scenes might affect the API compatibility. It certainly would affect what actually happens when certain operational requests are made as different operational models would end up behaving differently. I have contacted half a dozen providers, but I cannot get any straight answers from them.
In AWS, there are two "places" to run instances in a given zone. One is called EC2-classic. The other is called EC2-VPC. The problem with these is that the features I need are split up between them. In EC2-classic, an instance gets a random IP address that can reach the internet. In EC2-VPC it does not, and only gets an IP address in the VPC subnet. For an EC2-VPC to get an IP address to the internet, it has to get an "elastic IP" and associate that. But that has a limit and cannot scale with instances. You can have 20 instances in AWS without getting an extension, but only 5 elastic IPs.
I want instances that each have their own IP address to the internet (optionally... users should be able to choose NOT to have one, and maybe not having one should be the default)... and specifically NOT bottlenecked through a gateway instance... but also have their own IP address in a VPC style local address space that is assignable like VPC is.
I don't know if Open Stack can do this or not. What would be disturbing is, if it cannot do it, but a vendor wanted to have an operational model like the type of instance I want, would that break compatibility? Is the compatibility issue strictly an API "talking mode" issue, or does it extend to the operational models of the infrastructure, too? Does the compatibility issue block vendors from innovating?
... is to require businesses to do a better job of distinguishing between mere identity, and actual authenticated authorization. For example, your SSN is just some numbers that can refer to you. Having an SSN is absolutely not authorization. If someone uses you SSN and a business chooses to charge your or open accounts to allow such charges, then they have failed to obtain authorization. In such a case, it should be required by new sensible law that if you state for the record that you did not authorize the transactions or whatever, then that business may not take any action whatsoever unless and until they can prove that you actually did authorize it. The "not take any action" means they cannot collect on debts, cannot place debts with a debt collector, cannot put it on your credit report (must take it off if already did). It has to be like it never happened.
The big problem with ID theft is that these businesses are not checking authorization. They need to start checking authorization or simply eat the loss.
Then join me in pushing for the H-1B program to be made less abusable by allowing the visa holder to change job any time they want and work for anyone they want, who is willing to hire them. They would have to pay back the visa costs that were paid by their previous employer, prorated for the remaining visa period, plus statutory interest. Their new employer could cover that.
Or... you are trusting that at least someone in the community that spends their free time reading through arbitrary open source code will find any exploits and notify the world before your PC or phone is owned by someone else.
It's not about Fox News. That already is a cable channel. It's about the Fox Network that plays on affiliated local over-the-air stations. They seem to claim they want to abandon that and turn it into a cable channel, too. I say good riddance, as it is all junk TV, anyway. Maybe the station owner will put on some better programming. Or go dark and let someone else have the license.
You don't understand how business works. The first thing to understand is that they don't want to spend any money, and when forced to, they want to keep it to a minimum.
It's well known that if you just suddenly switch to a new OS version, stuff breaks, even if the new OS is more reliable and more secure. And those are often the reasons stuff breaks. All the applications have to be able to work in the new model of reliability and security. If some desktop app can no longer talk to the database because of new security (the app was using an insecure method originally) then that's broken. Business does not give a rat's arse about the theory of whose fault it is that it broke. They just want it to work, and work right now. And they know that means testing and modifying things. But they are not spending the money to get that done right now for a lot of complex reasons, such as hoping a new replacement app reaches them in time, or a waiting for the economy to recover to give them the money to hire people to do these changes.
No. This is NOT how proper pentesting is to be done. They MAY be acting legally as part of the medical practice relationship agreements. But that doesn't mean it is best practice or even close. It could just be the hospital asking their IT department to run some pentest software toward the IP addresses of a partner medical practice.
The fact that the hospital will do pentesting should already be known. The practice should have a contact number for the appropriate person at the hospital, for example, to confirm or deny an ongoing attack is a pentest. A report about the pentest results should be forthcoming... very rapidly if there are serious or critical vulnerabilities. Also, the pentesters should conduct at least an additional test with the information about what is what to emulate at attack by a digruntled employee. And there should also be discussions in advance about any critical facilities (and how to protect them).
Both should be consulting with a professional security company. It's obvious that neither are doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
... unless your little town decides to do it themselves. And they can, if they have the right supervision (maybe you). They can scale this down to size and it will cost only 1% of the cost of a city with a ~1,000,000. And the city can do it without the outrageous rates. It will help attract businesses to your little town. If the neighboring little towns also do it, then it will help them keep up.
Back when loading a big spreadsheet took a full minute, cutting that in half to 30 seconds with a new PC really meant something. Now days that spreadsheet loads in 1/4 second. Who GAF if they can cut that to 1/8 second.
OTOH, my new 3.6 GHz quad core quad channel 64GB can easiily handle multiple VMs at the same time.
What you are doing with the PC matters. What MOST people are doing isn't much more than reading email from Aunt Sally, checking if their stocks are going up, and surfing for new recipes. Office computers are a little busier.
... of North Korea's nuclear missile launch.
Bulb "types" are still made around what incandescent happens to be. LEDs do not fit well into these models as the technology is different. The very same shape can do a variety of radiation angles in LED that incandescent could never do.
We need to be encouraging people to use, and manufacturers to make, bulbs that are more efficiently used. Dictating a radiation angle as part of efficiency is not the right way. Saying a given LED is equivalent to a Type A incandescent bulb just gets people to do things inefficiently as they have done before.
Intentionally replacing an incandescent bulb is still a design decision. Part of the waste of incandescent is the wide radiation pattern. That's why they do make spot light variations. And they should make LEDs like that, too. But with LEDs, it's easier to make spot lights.
"Also companies fall out because they don't have the full light distribution required. For example, with an 'A lamp,' you have to have, to get the full Energy Star standard, 170 degrees of radial flux or light distribution all around the product at generally the same intensity all the way around," he added.
This is just stupid. The light distribution needed should be a matter of application. Efficient lighting also means not wasting light in directions that do not need to be illuminated. Instead of the 170 degree standard, the bulb should be quantified to what degree of lighting coverage it does achieve, and must be marketed accurately.
Just invalidate all the patents both sides claim and move the case over to the Moot Court of the nearest law school.
I have a concern that is based on deficiencies in Amazon Web Services. The AWS model lacks certain abilities that I am looking for in another cloud provider. But I am concerned that the operational model behind the scenes might affect the API compatibility. It certainly would affect what actually happens when certain operational requests are made as different operational models would end up behaving differently. I have contacted half a dozen providers, but I cannot get any straight answers from them.
In AWS, there are two "places" to run instances in a given zone. One is called EC2-classic. The other is called EC2-VPC. The problem with these is that the features I need are split up between them. In EC2-classic, an instance gets a random IP address that can reach the internet. In EC2-VPC it does not, and only gets an IP address in the VPC subnet. For an EC2-VPC to get an IP address to the internet, it has to get an "elastic IP" and associate that. But that has a limit and cannot scale with instances. You can have 20 instances in AWS without getting an extension, but only 5 elastic IPs.
I want instances that each have their own IP address to the internet (optionally ... users should be able to choose NOT to have one, and maybe not having one should be the default) ... and specifically NOT bottlenecked through a gateway instance ... but also have their own IP address in a VPC style local address space that is assignable like VPC is.
I don't know if Open Stack can do this or not. What would be disturbing is, if it cannot do it, but a vendor wanted to have an operational model like the type of instance I want, would that break compatibility? Is the compatibility issue strictly an API "talking mode" issue, or does it extend to the operational models of the infrastructure, too? Does the compatibility issue block vendors from innovating?
... is to require businesses to do a better job of distinguishing between mere identity, and actual authenticated authorization. For example, your SSN is just some numbers that can refer to you. Having an SSN is absolutely not authorization. If someone uses you SSN and a business chooses to charge your or open accounts to allow such charges, then they have failed to obtain authorization. In such a case, it should be required by new sensible law that if you state for the record that you did not authorize the transactions or whatever, then that business may not take any action whatsoever unless and until they can prove that you actually did authorize it. The "not take any action" means they cannot collect on debts, cannot place debts with a debt collector, cannot put it on your credit report (must take it off if already did). It has to be like it never happened.
The big problem with ID theft is that these businesses are not checking authorization. They need to start checking authorization or simply eat the loss.
Then join me in pushing for the H-1B program to be made less abusable by allowing the visa holder to change job any time they want and work for anyone they want, who is willing to hire them. They would have to pay back the visa costs that were paid by their previous employer, prorated for the remaining visa period, plus statutory interest. Their new employer could cover that.
You are really making the name of Anonymous Coward look bad.
Or ... you are trusting that at least someone in the community that spends their free time reading through arbitrary open source code will find any exploits and notify the world before your PC or phone is owned by someone else.
It's not about Fox News. That already is a cable channel. It's about the Fox Network that plays on affiliated local over-the-air stations. They seem to claim they want to abandon that and turn it into a cable channel, too. I say good riddance, as it is all junk TV, anyway. Maybe the station owner will put on some better programming. Or go dark and let someone else have the license.
Dashcam pics or it didn't happen.
Removing 1 is sufficient if you have the method of removing them be pulling them off with pliers and no anesthesia.
I'm only fully joking.
Jury or judge ... NOT cop.
... because it speaks to you. You have your destination already set, and it's hands from from there.
But that also means that all those insecure apps they are using on XP won't be allowed to work the way they expect to when they move to WIndows 7.
You don't understand how business works. The first thing to understand is that they don't want to spend any money, and when forced to, they want to keep it to a minimum.
It's well known that if you just suddenly switch to a new OS version, stuff breaks, even if the new OS is more reliable and more secure. And those are often the reasons stuff breaks. All the applications have to be able to work in the new model of reliability and security. If some desktop app can no longer talk to the database because of new security (the app was using an insecure method originally) then that's broken. Business does not give a rat's arse about the theory of whose fault it is that it broke. They just want it to work, and work right now. And they know that means testing and modifying things. But they are not spending the money to get that done right now for a lot of complex reasons, such as hoping a new replacement app reaches them in time, or a waiting for the economy to recover to give them the money to hire people to do these changes.
... is that we can no longer hire French citizens for telecommute work on sensitive jobs.
It's purpose is to waste your time so you don't find the real facility.
... debt collectors look like angels.
Real security experts do not wear suits.
And no doubt it still is that way even today.
No. This is NOT how proper pentesting is to be done. They MAY be acting legally as part of the medical practice relationship agreements. But that doesn't mean it is best practice or even close. It could just be the hospital asking their IT department to run some pentest software toward the IP addresses of a partner medical practice.
The fact that the hospital will do pentesting should already be known. The practice should have a contact number for the appropriate person at the hospital, for example, to confirm or deny an ongoing attack is a pentest. A report about the pentest results should be forthcoming ... very rapidly if there are serious or critical vulnerabilities. Also, the pentesters should conduct at least an additional test with the information about what is what to emulate at attack by a digruntled employee. And there should also be discussions in advance about any critical facilities (and how to protect them).
Both should be consulting with a professional security company. It's obvious that neither are doing so.