I would disagree that compartmentalization hasn't been shown to increase security. They key to all security is multiple different locks. Make someone jump through lots of different hoops.
It has been a successful method for centuries. Send to messengers one with an encoded message, one with a key to that message. They go different routes and both need to be captured.
As for security in applications that is part of the problem. Applications shouldn't be secure systems should be. If invocations of authority an explicit not implicit application code can be substantially less focused on security while the overall security increases because the system is secure. That incidentally is the method the military uses, which has a long track record of success.
You are forgetting about compartmentalization. The database server can have multiple schemas all encrypted. The keys can be in various applications. That way if the database is hacked the information is worthless without also hacking the various apps that use the data. It doesn't have to be one key.
I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them
Well you would be wrong there. The ways calls are routed is very complex and no one has total knowledge of what they are passing. The PSTN is just not structured with that sort of identification information.
However, here’s my take, and why it still doesn’t need to be illegal IMHO. The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right?
No they aren't. For example my company spoofs so that patients who hit *87 or return the call go to a number where their calls will get handled rather than some internal number that might just be an outgoing only line.
I know you meant this to be kidding but the fact is RPL which is essentially a Forth was for many people their first programming language. And it wasn't a bad choice.
Take a look at the math articles. Heck most of the original content like episodes of BattleStar Galactica, information about cartoon characters or fringe political movements didn't have high quality references. Wikipedia built itself by specializing in materials for which only so / so or no references existed. Articles on wikipedia were higher quality that the same material on the same topics anywhere else.
Agreed, though it doesn't have to be that way. I see articles that need to be created or extensive revised all the time. But 4 years ago people worked together to create content. Now they work together to destroy content.
As the amount of air increases, the friction causes a decrease in terminal velocity and he slowly loses velocity. It doesn't happen fast enough to break up.
Go after other activities of the investment group. Google has enormous investigative resources. Imagine the fund is run out of Prudential and google starts doing a search for Prudential and misconduct Prudential and SEC violations Prudential and stock fraud.....
across all their sources of data: the internet, google docs, google mail....
I'm not sure Prudential doesn't walk off in pretty bad shape.
In the case of Bush the democrats were complicit for electoral reasons so they were unable to have a trial. That wasn't the case with Nixon. I don't think Fox news was the problem with the Bush administration's crimes being ignored.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing. If you agree that the:
low end blog -> large distribution blog -> cable news -> mainstream news
cycle works well for investigative journalism then you pretty much agreeing. As for independent news gathering I'd say the blogs tend to be more independent than the newspapers that are dominated by commercial interests. Bloggers are hard to control newspapers because they depend on advertising dollars, not so much.
I'd agree they aren't part of the mainstream media. The question is whether this disruptive technology could replace the existing incumbent. I think we are all agreed blogs aren't yet the existing incumbent.
As for working on an entirely different scale, I don't agree. I think the scale of the blogsphere today is probably far larger than all the print media combined. At the current rates of growth you are probably looking at 20x the size by 2020. This reminds me a lot of the Britannica vs. Wikipedia discussions around 2006. In 2006 you had a less reliable but much larger source, today the scope of wikipedia is so great there is just no comparing the two.
The blogsphere is already getting to the point that by the 2010 elections I should be able to get detailed information on each and every congressional race. I've never experienced that before.
I think you got some good responses below, which are enough to prove the point. I'd also say Daily Kos/RedState provide tremendous amounts of original material. Wikipedia talk pages are a very good source for biographical information.
It is. I'm not the one arguing that Web 2.0 journalism isn't journalism. And more importantly,/. provides a better daily technology section than any newspaper could or would.
The same way the WSJ sells papers / subscriptions. They would have a reputation for unique news. And that reputations draws the crowd. They only need aggregators to attract a crowd that likely wouldn't pay anyway.
Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?
In today's world, W. Mark Felt would have had an anonymous identity and leaked good information to Firedoglake or Daily Kos. The blogs would have picked up on it. The information would have sounded credible and so a Rachel Maddow would have started to cover it in detail and the whole thing breaks a year earlier than it did under the Washington Post.
You have been around a while. I don't think the/. crowd is being anti-intellectual in their attack on journalism they are simply presenting a fairly uniform position:
1) High quality journalism means doing substantial research and papers don't provide that at all. 2) Mid quality journalism means doing lots of research quickly. 3) Low quality journalism is summarizing and presenting common information.
The web completely does the low part using aggregation. That's the bulk of what newspapers do today. Papers like the WSJ do mid quality work and they are being treated supportively. For political news though the blogsphere also does a good job. I don't see evidence that most of what is in the NYTimes meets the mid quality standard.
Yes but to keep access to decision makers they can't veer to far off the "mainstream" nor ask really challenging questions. Often the big name columnists get far far better when they lose access to the decision makers.
We already have ways to publicize interesting articles even if they cost. The problem for the NYTimes is they have cut their reporting staff so deeply they just don't have many interesting articles.
If they had lots and lots of interesting articles all the time they would have no trouble selling the paper.
The old system we have now is a paid propaganda controlled by advertisers and their interests. At least we get a diversity of interests. Manufacturing Consent.
You may be too young to remember this but papers you used to experiment with a national / local split. That's the reason for the A/B/C/D... stuff.
A was produced at headquarters. B was produced at local offices. C/D/E were produced by specialized vendors / or run weekly. That's what's happening on a national scale. Let the local papers do the B section stuff. Tell me about the mayor, but actually do a good job covering the news.
Slashdot Mirror
I would disagree that compartmentalization hasn't been shown to increase security. They key to all security is multiple different locks. Make someone jump through lots of different hoops.
It has been a successful method for centuries. Send to messengers one with an encoded message, one with a key to that message. They go different routes and both need to be captured.
As for security in applications that is part of the problem. Applications shouldn't be secure systems should be. If invocations of authority an explicit not implicit application code can be substantially less focused on security while the overall security increases because the system is secure. That incidentally is the method the military uses, which has a long track record of success.
You are forgetting about compartmentalization. The database server can have multiple schemas all encrypted. The keys can be in various applications. That way if the database is hacked the information is worthless without also hacking the various apps that use the data. It doesn't have to be one key.
Just virtualize locally there is no reason this has to be global. Virtualization or a network appliance can do the same thing.
Yes exactly. But I commenting on why people might want to give the wrong phone number.
I'm pretty sure that all of the phone companies already know how to route calls between networks and who owns them
Well you would be wrong there. The ways calls are routed is very complex and no one has total knowledge of what they are passing. The PSTN is just not structured with that sort of identification information.
However, here’s my take, and why it still doesn’t need to be illegal IMHO. The companies who spoof are generally doing stuff that should be illegal anyway, right?
No they aren't. For example my company spoofs so that patients who hit *87 or return the call go to a number where their calls will get handled rather than some internal number that might just be an outgoing only line.
I know you meant this to be kidding but the fact is RPL which is essentially a Forth was for many people their first programming language. And it wasn't a bad choice.
Take a look at the math articles. Heck most of the original content like episodes of BattleStar Galactica, information about cartoon characters or fringe political movements didn't have high quality references. Wikipedia built itself by specializing in materials for which only so / so or no references existed. Articles on wikipedia were higher quality that the same material on the same topics anywhere else.
Agreed, though it doesn't have to be that way. I see articles that need to be created or extensive revised all the time. But 4 years ago people worked together to create content. Now they work together to destroy content.
As the amount of air increases, the friction causes a decrease in terminal velocity and he slowly loses velocity. It doesn't happen fast enough to break up.
There is almost no air. According to people who have done high altitude jumping you are essentially unaware you are actually falling.
Go after other activities of the investment group. Google has enormous investigative resources. Imagine the fund is run out of Prudential and google starts doing a search for .....
Prudential and misconduct
Prudential and SEC violations
Prudential and stock fraud
across all their sources of data: the internet, google docs, google mail....
I'm not sure Prudential doesn't walk off in pretty bad shape.
In the case of Bush the democrats were complicit for electoral reasons so they were unable to have a trial. That wasn't the case with Nixon. I don't think Fox news was the problem with the Bush administration's crimes being ignored.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing. If you agree that the:
low end blog -> large distribution blog -> cable news -> mainstream news
cycle works well for investigative journalism then you pretty much agreeing. As for independent news gathering I'd say the blogs tend to be more independent than the newspapers that are dominated by commercial interests. Bloggers are hard to control newspapers because they depend on advertising dollars, not so much.
I'd agree they aren't part of the mainstream media. The question is whether this disruptive technology could replace the existing incumbent. I think we are all agreed blogs aren't yet the existing incumbent.
As for working on an entirely different scale, I don't agree. I think the scale of the blogsphere today is probably far larger than all the print media combined. At the current rates of growth you are probably looking at 20x the size by 2020. This reminds me a lot of the Britannica vs. Wikipedia discussions around 2006. In 2006 you had a less reliable but much larger source, today the scope of wikipedia is so great there is just no comparing the two.
The blogsphere is already getting to the point that by the 2010 elections I should be able to get detailed information on each and every congressional race. I've never experienced that before.
I think you got some good responses below, which are enough to prove the point. I'd also say Daily Kos/RedState provide tremendous amounts of original material. Wikipedia talk pages are a very good source for biographical information.
It is. I'm not the one arguing that Web 2.0 journalism isn't journalism. And more importantly, /. provides a better daily technology section than any newspaper could or would.
The same way the WSJ sells papers / subscriptions. They would have a reputation for unique news. And that reputations draws the crowd. They only need aggregators to attract a crowd that likely wouldn't pay anyway.
In today's world, W. Mark Felt would have had an anonymous identity and leaked good information to Firedoglake or Daily Kos. The blogs would have picked up on it. The information would have sounded credible and so a Rachel Maddow would have started to cover it in detail and the whole thing breaks a year earlier than it did under the Washington Post.
Proportionately, The NYTimes of the 1950s when they used to do that.
You have been around a while. I don't think the /. crowd is being anti-intellectual in their attack on journalism they are simply presenting a fairly uniform position:
1) High quality journalism means doing substantial research and papers don't provide that at all.
2) Mid quality journalism means doing lots of research quickly.
3) Low quality journalism is summarizing and presenting common information.
The web completely does the low part using aggregation. That's the bulk of what newspapers do today. Papers like the WSJ do mid quality work and they are being treated supportively. For political news though the blogsphere also does a good job. I don't see evidence that most of what is in the NYTimes meets the mid quality standard.
Yes but to keep access to decision makers they can't veer to far off the "mainstream" nor ask really challenging questions. Often the big name columnists get far far better when they lose access to the decision makers.
We already have ways to publicize interesting articles even if they cost. The problem for the NYTimes is they have cut their reporting staff so deeply they just don't have many interesting articles.
If they had lots and lots of interesting articles all the time they would have no trouble selling the paper.
The old system we have now is a paid propaganda controlled by advertisers and their interests. At least we get a diversity of interests. Manufacturing Consent.
You may be too young to remember this but papers you used to experiment with a national / local split. That's the reason for the A/B/C/D... stuff.
A was produced at headquarters. B was produced at local offices. C/D/E were produced by specialized vendors / or run weekly. That's what's happening on a national scale. Let the local papers do the B section stuff. Tell me about the mayor, but actually do a good job covering the news.