I've worked with microduct under slots cut in the street. Done properly, it works well.
Two inches down? That's nuts. You have to pack sand on top of the duct so it stays in place and then seal the sand so it doesn't wash away. And the seal doesn't stay. You have to keep redoing it until the next time the road is paved.
Are you a boss? Do you supervise other employees? If you don't then you don't know. You underestimate the difficulty of work you haven't performed.
Me, I tried being the boss a couple of times. It's hard! You can't get qualified people when you need them. You're lucky if you can get qualified people before you need them when it's hard to justify the expense. And you can't keep them. They move on when they're ready.
Hiring a bunch of juniors is a disaster, especially smart juniors. They don't know what they don't know but enough of them together convince themselves that they do. Easy way to lose your seniors is to hire more juniors than the seniors can ride herd on.
Meanwhile the big boss never wants to hear that he can't do what he wants to do because you can't hire enough staff to make it happen... not even if you pay more because there just aren't enough competent people in the field looking.
So here's a lesson: don't tell the other guy how easy his job is. You don't know, he knows you don't know and to him you just look like a fool.
I couldn't disagree more. Contracts are about what happens when someone fails. You. Your boss. Someone.
Success means you never had a discussion about what the contract requires because it was never necessary. You were paid what you expected and more in bonuses and benefits. You were assigned work within your abilities you could reasonably complete. You did the work well, focused on the quality of your work product and how it met the companies needs. You were done when the work was done, not when the clock hit five.
That's success. Clock-watching is failure. No different than non-trivial amounts of overtime is failure.
If you're a hard worker who cares about your work, you will work some overtime. It's inevitable. BUT, if your work routinely can't be completed unless you work overtime then your boss is doing a poor job. He's supposed to hire and retain enough qualified people to do the work and he's suppose to reject work that exceeds his staff's limit.
That's really hard to do but doing it successfully is why he gets the big bucks. If he's not successful at it, he doesn't deserve the big bucks.
Exactly. In Virginia, wearing earphones while driving (except for a hearing aid) is unlawful for exactly this reason. No need for shenanigans about whether they're in use or not.
It's funny, but when your business has google drive instead of an open file share and gmail instead of outlook, there are lots and lots of malware problems you simply don't have. It's not that you couldn't have them. It's just that you don't.
I'm in the 9%. I'm not overconfident... I just realize that treating staff like potential enemies is a losing proposition.
I have lawyers to deal with employees who violate my trust. Until it's time to get the lawyers involved, it's better for everyone if I assume they're trustworthy.
I focus my efforts on the authentication and accounting side of the problem and handle authorization with a very light touch. Make sure you are who you claim to be and make sure I know what you did. Then get out of the way and let you do your job.
it reverses the traditional storage server layout by moving CPUs to the front of the PCB and storage drives to the back. This means cool air from the fans blows over the drives first, and then the CPUs â" which wouldn't make any sense in a compute server.
Um... What?
Modern servers cool front to back. They place the drives in front where they are cooled first. Some place the CPUs behind the drives. Others place the CPUs in parallel with the drives so that they're also cooled directly from ambient air.
No one in their right mind places the drives after the CPUs. Losing a CPU is just money. Losing the drive is everything.
Were you maybe trying to say they put the fans in front of the drives instead of behind them, pushing air instead of pulling it? That doesn't make any real difference to the cooling, but it makes hot-swap harder.
If these machines actually cool back to front, that's a bad thing. Modern data centers are laid out with a hot-aisle cold-aisle design. The wiring and exhaust side (the back) faces the hot aisle. Equipment which reverses that flow effs everything up. Cisco is especially bad about this, but servers mostly get it right.
Marketing is promotion. Actions taken in the course of promoting a product or brand to the public are marketing. Nearly identical actions, taken for a different purpose, are not.
It's true that Amazon's new product process starts with writing a mock press release that explains who the customer is and why we think they want to buy the product. But if you think that means marketing, you have it upside down.
Amazon's process doesn't start with figuring out how to sell you something. It starts with figuring out what you want to buy. Then they figure out if they can make it. 'Cause if you already want to buy it, the only marketing needed is to tell you it exists. Customer obsession it's called.
Success is not about being in the right place at the right time. It's about *realizing* that you're in the right place at the right time and having the courage and diligence to act on that knowledge. Because everybody is in the right place at the right time some of the time. And nobody is in the right place at the right time all the time.
Nice ad-hominem you got going there. Let me offer a point for you to consider.
I've left my front door open before. Forget locked, I've left the door wide open intending to go back inside, changed my mind in the 20 feet to the car and driven off forgetting the door was wide open.
My security was not breached.
I live in a neighborhood with watchful neighbors and a healthy police presence. Strangers poking around are noticed, reported, stopped. I could leave my door unlocked every day and it's unlikely I'd be burgled because: depth of security.
Locked door. Watchful neighbors, Police presence. An adversary must defeat three distinct layers of security to steal my television. And if I was worried that wasn't enough, I could add an alarm system and a security camera.
My home security does not, does not, does not critically depend on an adversary being unable to defeat the lock on my door.
Encryption is like the lock on my front door. It's only one element of a successful security architecture. If it's the only element of your security system, if someone with the right electronic crowbar can pry your system open with impunity, it's time to rethink your security.
And oh by the way, I've been in one or another part of the information security business for a quarter of a century. If one of us is an amateur, you're looking at the wrong one of us.
10 years? Where have I heard that before? Oh, right, AI in the 1960s.
Seriously though, if your security is immediately breached when someone breaks your encryption, you should rethink your security. Security is about depth - how many layers an adversary must breach before he gains access to your valuables. If you only have one layer between you and your adversary, your valuables are not very secure.
Yeah, breaking up the companies in question would be senseless.
Google is search. Everything else they're involved in is a sideshow bordering on philanthropy. What's the plan, tell them stop doing free sideshows because somebody else would like to make money at it?
Facebook is their fickle users. The folks who don't want to be on facebook (I'm one of them) set up personal web pages and do just fine. Behemoth, yes. Monopoly... what monopoly powers do they exercise? What monopoly powers *can* they exercise?
Amazon... is weird. They're not just a vendor, they've made themselves a platform for third-party vendors. They invite and enable competition as often, perhaps more often, than they obstruct it. They could exercise monopoly powers (like product tying) but they just don't. More, they're a natural monopoly. They got where they are by serving their customers well, not blocking or buying their competitors. In fact, one of the signatures of Amazon's few acquisitions is that they were well outside Amazon's normal business.
Block chain proves the time of the assertion. The signature alone only proves that you have they key, not the time when you used it. Thus block chain lets you establish precedence.
Parts of the author's reasoning are deeply flawed.
. Proof of authorship
Letâ(TM)s say Artist A wants to use blockchain to register that a certain painting is his. He takes a photo of it, puts the photo hash in blockchain, and then uploads the photo to a blog. Now, if Artist B claims that the painting belongs to him, Artist A can easily prove his authorship by showing the photo and hash.
There are two potential issues in this case:
First, Artist B can say he did not know about blockchain and thus could not use it to register his authorship. Therefore, this procedure can only work if it becomes common practice.
Second, Artist B could break into Artist Aâ(TM)s studio, take a photo of the painting, and place the hash in blockchain before Artist A.
Neither of these is a rational argument against blockchain for this use case. Here, blockchain proves that the picture is the same picture registered by the individual at a particular date and time before passing through however many hands. Nothing more, nothing less. That's nine tenths of any proof of authorship process: proving that you possessed it first.
Money
Blockchain is perfect for handling money, primarily because it was created exactly for this purpose. Blockchain records and verifies statements like âParty A owned X amount; Party A transferred X amount to Party B; Party B owns X amountâ(TM) as all previous similar statements were recorded within the same blockchain.
Blockchain is terrible for handling non-trivial amounts of money. It has all of the problems of handling large quantities of cash magnified by extreme accessibility.
1. Your cash can be destroyed, e.g. by fire. If destroyed, it's irreplaceable. Your blockchain money can be destroyed even more easily: by losing the current key.
2. Cash transactions are irreversible. If someone cheats you or steals from you, a judge can't order the bank to reverse the transaction. Blockchain money is the same: once its encrypted with the receiver's key and published to the blockchain, no legal authority can undo it. Your money is gone.
NIST's SP 800-63 also says that passwords are supposed to be stored in a format resistant to offline cracking. NTLM never was particularly resistant and, like unix crypt was, should have been retired many years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked with microduct under slots cut in the street. Done properly, it works well.
Two inches down? That's nuts. You have to pack sand on top of the duct so it stays in place and then seal the sand so it doesn't wash away. And the seal doesn't stay. You have to keep redoing it until the next time the road is paved.
Work smarter not harder applies to managers too. If you lead by staying late all the time, you're doing it wrong.
Are you a boss? Do you supervise other employees? If you don't then you don't know. You underestimate the difficulty of work you haven't performed.
Me, I tried being the boss a couple of times. It's hard! You can't get qualified people when you need them. You're lucky if you can get qualified people before you need them when it's hard to justify the expense. And you can't keep them. They move on when they're ready.
Hiring a bunch of juniors is a disaster, especially smart juniors. They don't know what they don't know but enough of them together convince themselves that they do. Easy way to lose your seniors is to hire more juniors than the seniors can ride herd on.
Meanwhile the big boss never wants to hear that he can't do what he wants to do because you can't hire enough staff to make it happen... not even if you pay more because there just aren't enough competent people in the field looking.
So here's a lesson: don't tell the other guy how easy his job is. You don't know, he knows you don't know and to him you just look like a fool.
I couldn't disagree more. Contracts are about what happens when someone fails. You. Your boss. Someone.
Success means you never had a discussion about what the contract requires because it was never necessary. You were paid what you expected and more in bonuses and benefits. You were assigned work within your abilities you could reasonably complete. You did the work well, focused on the quality of your work product and how it met the companies needs. You were done when the work was done, not when the clock hit five.
That's success. Clock-watching is failure. No different than non-trivial amounts of overtime is failure.
If you're a hard worker who cares about your work, you will work some overtime. It's inevitable. BUT, if your work routinely can't be completed unless you work overtime then your boss is doing a poor job. He's supposed to hire and retain enough qualified people to do the work and he's suppose to reject work that exceeds his staff's limit.
That's really hard to do but doing it successfully is why he gets the big bucks. If he's not successful at it, he doesn't deserve the big bucks.
I too wish to twarth attacks. If you ask nicely, I might even try to thwart them.
Exactly. In Virginia, wearing earphones while driving (except for a hearing aid) is unlawful for exactly this reason. No need for shenanigans about whether they're in use or not.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
That this basic calculus equation was wrong is my new excuse for why I suck at calculus.
It's funny, but when your business has google drive instead of an open file share and gmail instead of outlook, there are lots and lots of malware problems you simply don't have. It's not that you couldn't have them. It's just that you don't.
I'm in the 9%. I'm not overconfident... I just realize that treating staff like potential enemies is a losing proposition.
I have lawyers to deal with employees who violate my trust. Until it's time to get the lawyers involved, it's better for everyone if I assume they're trustworthy.
I focus my efforts on the authentication and accounting side of the problem and handle authorization with a very light touch. Make sure you are who you claim to be and make sure I know what you did. Then get out of the way and let you do your job.
it reverses the traditional storage server layout by moving CPUs to the front of the PCB and storage drives to the back. This means cool air from the fans blows over the drives first, and then the CPUs â" which wouldn't make any sense in a compute server.
Um... What?
Modern servers cool front to back. They place the drives in front where they are cooled first. Some place the CPUs behind the drives. Others place the CPUs in parallel with the drives so that they're also cooled directly from ambient air.
No one in their right mind places the drives after the CPUs. Losing a CPU is just money. Losing the drive is everything.
Were you maybe trying to say they put the fans in front of the drives instead of behind them, pushing air instead of pulling it? That doesn't make any real difference to the cooling, but it makes hot-swap harder.
If these machines actually cool back to front, that's a bad thing. Modern data centers are laid out with a hot-aisle cold-aisle design. The wiring and exhaust side (the back) faces the hot aisle. Equipment which reverses that flow effs everything up. Cisco is especially bad about this, but servers mostly get it right.
They said it about laptop batteries too. Most of the time they were right. Most of the time.
Exactly. They bought a product with non-replaceable batteries. Have they been living under a rock? What did they think would happen?
Also... do you have any idea what the energy density of a charged lithium ion battery is? And you're willing to place it in your ear!?
You have it upside down,
Every action is marketing. And none are.
Marketing is promotion. Actions taken in the course of promoting a product or brand to the public are marketing. Nearly identical actions, taken for a different purpose, are not.
This process is called "lobbying." I LOL that wikipedia has attracted lobbyists.
It's true that Amazon's new product process starts with writing a mock press release that explains who the customer is and why we think they want to buy the product. But if you think that means marketing, you have it upside down.
Amazon's process doesn't start with figuring out how to sell you something. It starts with figuring out what you want to buy. Then they figure out if they can make it. 'Cause if you already want to buy it, the only marketing needed is to tell you it exists. Customer obsession it's called.
It'd be more impressive if they did it _well_.
Success is not about being in the right place at the right time. It's about *realizing* that you're in the right place at the right time and having the courage and diligence to act on that knowledge. Because everybody is in the right place at the right time some of the time. And nobody is in the right place at the right time all the time.
Nice ad-hominem you got going there. Let me offer a point for you to consider.
I've left my front door open before. Forget locked, I've left the door wide open intending to go back inside, changed my mind in the 20 feet to the car and driven off forgetting the door was wide open.
My security was not breached.
I live in a neighborhood with watchful neighbors and a healthy police presence. Strangers poking around are noticed, reported, stopped. I could leave my door unlocked every day and it's unlikely I'd be burgled because: depth of security.
Locked door. Watchful neighbors, Police presence. An adversary must defeat three distinct layers of security to steal my television. And if I was worried that wasn't enough, I could add an alarm system and a security camera.
My home security does not, does not, does not critically depend on an adversary being unable to defeat the lock on my door.
Encryption is like the lock on my front door. It's only one element of a successful security architecture. If it's the only element of your security system, if someone with the right electronic crowbar can pry your system open with impunity, it's time to rethink your security.
And oh by the way, I've been in one or another part of the information security business for a quarter of a century. If one of us is an amateur, you're looking at the wrong one of us.
10 years? Where have I heard that before? Oh, right, AI in the 1960s.
Seriously though, if your security is immediately breached when someone breaks your encryption, you should rethink your security. Security is about depth - how many layers an adversary must breach before he gains access to your valuables. If you only have one layer between you and your adversary, your valuables are not very secure.
I thinking of you, blockchain.
I hope you meant bury your trash. Burning it (putting all that carbon back in to the air) is the worst thing you can do.
Yeah, breaking up the companies in question would be senseless.
Google is search. Everything else they're involved in is a sideshow bordering on philanthropy. What's the plan, tell them stop doing free sideshows because somebody else would like to make money at it?
Facebook is their fickle users. The folks who don't want to be on facebook (I'm one of them) set up personal web pages and do just fine. Behemoth, yes. Monopoly... what monopoly powers do they exercise? What monopoly powers *can* they exercise?
Amazon... is weird. They're not just a vendor, they've made themselves a platform for third-party vendors. They invite and enable competition as often, perhaps more often, than they obstruct it. They could exercise monopoly powers (like product tying) but they just don't. More, they're a natural monopoly. They got where they are by serving their customers well, not blocking or buying their competitors. In fact, one of the signatures of Amazon's few acquisitions is that they were well outside Amazon's normal business.
Block chain proves the time of the assertion. The signature alone only proves that you have they key, not the time when you used it. Thus block chain lets you establish precedence.
Parts of the author's reasoning are deeply flawed.
. Proof of authorship
Letâ(TM)s say Artist A wants to use blockchain to register that a certain painting is his. He takes a photo of it, puts the photo hash in blockchain, and then uploads the photo to a blog. Now, if Artist B claims that the painting belongs to him, Artist A can easily prove his authorship by showing the photo and hash.
There are two potential issues in this case:
First, Artist B can say he did not know about blockchain and thus could not use it to register his authorship. Therefore, this procedure can only work if it becomes common practice.
Second, Artist B could break into Artist Aâ(TM)s studio, take a photo of the painting, and place the hash in blockchain before Artist A.
Neither of these is a rational argument against blockchain for this use case. Here, blockchain proves that the picture is the same picture registered by the individual at a particular date and time before passing through however many hands. Nothing more, nothing less. That's nine tenths of any proof of authorship process: proving that you possessed it first.
Money
Blockchain is perfect for handling money, primarily because it was created exactly for this purpose. Blockchain records and verifies statements like âParty A owned X amount; Party A transferred X amount to Party B; Party B owns X amountâ(TM) as all previous similar statements were recorded within the same blockchain.
Blockchain is terrible for handling non-trivial amounts of money. It has all of the problems of handling large quantities of cash magnified by extreme accessibility.
1. Your cash can be destroyed, e.g. by fire. If destroyed, it's irreplaceable. Your blockchain money can be destroyed even more easily: by losing the current key.
2. Cash transactions are irreversible. If someone cheats you or steals from you, a judge can't order the bank to reverse the transaction. Blockchain money is the same: once its encrypted with the receiver's key and published to the blockchain, no legal authority can undo it. Your money is gone.
NIST's SP 800-63 also says that passwords are supposed to be stored in a format resistant to offline cracking. NTLM never was particularly resistant and, like unix crypt was, should have been retired many years ago.