This isn't an either/or question. An organization should step back, do an inventory (*much* easier said than done), and weigh the consequences and likelihood of a range of Bad Things, in other words a risk assessment.
A relatively unnoticed provision of PCI requires doing a risk assessment, and you'd better do a risk assessment for HIPAA as well.
If you do a risk assessment right, then you'll be led to spending money in the places where it does the most good. If a regulation prompts you to do one, then it has served security in general.
You might think so, and there are probably organizations where that's true, but in my practice I've been getting clients I never would have before who've been jolted out of apathy by finding that there are security measures that someone else is telling them to take.
I wish I could remember who said this, because he or she deserves credit, but someone commented about Usenet in particular that once something is posted there, the only known way to get rid of it is to destroy the planet.
The authorities have made it plain by their actions that there's no way to get justice and stay alive. This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying.
The problem also runs deeper than the conduct of the high school authorities. What are the odds that the conscienceless perpetrators didn't present any warning signs in grade school and middle school?
I worked on an embedded flight system there, and deeply respected people like your dad.
Boeing works under the eye of a certification authority who has to approve the safety of a design including, at least in the system I worked on, human factors. If there's anything comparable for cars, I haven't heard of it.
Boeing would not have made a pilot have to guess at how to turn an engine off (people with older cars, it's no longer a matter of turning a key).
Inputs were checked for consistency and validity. The specs would have anticipated what to do if the accelerator and brake were both full on at the same time.
There was a culture of worst-case planning and redundancy.
Also, if Boeing built a car, it would have a flight data recorder which investigators could examine and say for example "Looks like both(*) potentiometers on the accelerator went hard over at the same time, so we go look on the branches of the fault tree where there's a common-mode failure in the potentiometers or the pedal is down due to mechanical or pilot error".
(*) If I remember correctly from my obsessive pre-purchase research on Priuses, there are two separate sensors for accelerator position.
>I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.
_Astounding_ editor John Campbell once suggested that quack doctors should be allowed to practice under a special quack license, which would alert patients to the fact that they weren't going to a mainstream doctor. He added a really interesting wrinkle, which was that a quack license would be conditional on keeping lab-grade records of treatments and results, so that quack treatments would get empirical testing with informed volunteers.
You couldn't afford to make every day Christmas, but you wouldn't want to do without it altogether, so we've compromised on picking one day of the year to do it regularly.
My wife would have gotten her Valentine's Day gift anyway, but it is fun to time it for V-Day to underline the intent behind it.
Climate is the signal, weather is the noise. I can't predict the weather in Seattle a year from today but I'm on pretty safe ground saying it will be a drizzly month.
A friend of mine worked on an earlier attempt to locate a data center in Iceland. They mapped out a place somewhere on the west side that they believed to be seismically stable.
Volcanoes are scary though. You can build miles away from them and still get your HVAC clogged if the wind blows ash your way.
Is this exercise realistic given the need to protect against well hidden back doors, tampering by election officials, and sloppy procedures (like letting a vendor install uncertified patches just before an election)? They tested only a narrow range of dangers.
The right way to do something like this is at design time.
They deserve credit, though, for doing things so much better than the US.
In a Prius, the gas engine is always connected to the planet carrier of the power split device, and the ring gear is always connected to the wheels. In neutral, the electric system is neither supplying nor consuming power and the sun gear idles, canceling out the gas engine.
If, that is, the gas engine is even running. With the car in neutral, the only reason for the car to switch on the gas engine would be to re-warm the emission control system. Or for backwards compatibility if someone steps on the accelerator.
A real attack would likely involve more than a few days of effort, and might well have access to inside information not available to the red teams in the contest.
If nobody breaks in, that will prove very little about the security of the machines.
Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.
>In the case of Ivies, "Who you know" counts as a prerequisite for getting in, not a benefit of going there.
My firsthand experience and observations at Princeton contradict this statement. My college girlfriend was from a ranch in Idaho and the daughter of a Marine noncom who I can guarantee you had no upper-class connections. Dorm neighbors were from everywhere from Egypt to Ghana, not East Coast elite.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't an either/or question. An organization should step back, do an inventory (*much* easier said than done), and weigh the consequences and likelihood of a range of Bad Things, in other words a risk assessment.
A relatively unnoticed provision of PCI requires doing a risk assessment, and you'd better do a risk assessment for HIPAA as well.
If you do a risk assessment right, then you'll be led to spending money in the places where it does the most good. If a regulation prompts you to do one, then it has served security in general.
You might think so, and there are probably organizations where that's true, but in my practice I've been getting clients I never would have before who've been jolted out of apathy by finding that there are security measures that someone else is telling them to take.
I wish I could remember who said this, because he or she deserves credit, but someone commented about Usenet in particular that once something is posted there, the only known way to get rid of it is to destroy the planet.
The authorities have made it plain by their actions that there's no way to get justice and stay alive. This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying.
The problem also runs deeper than the conduct of the high school authorities. What are the odds that the conscienceless perpetrators didn't present any warning signs in grade school and middle school?
I worked on an embedded flight system there, and deeply respected people like your dad.
Boeing works under the eye of a certification authority who has to approve the safety of a design including, at least in the system I worked on, human factors. If there's anything comparable for cars, I haven't heard of it.
Boeing would not have made a pilot have to guess at how to turn an engine off (people with older cars, it's no longer a matter of turning a key).
Inputs were checked for consistency and validity. The specs would have anticipated what to do if the accelerator and brake were both full on at the same time.
There was a culture of worst-case planning and redundancy.
Also, if Boeing built a car, it would have a flight data recorder which investigators could examine and say for example "Looks like both(*) potentiometers on the accelerator went hard over at the same time, so we go look on the branches of the fault tree where there's a common-mode failure in the potentiometers or the pedal is down due to mechanical or pilot error".
(*) If I remember correctly from my obsessive pre-purchase research on Priuses, there are two separate sensors for accelerator position.
>I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.
_Astounding_ editor John Campbell once suggested that quack doctors should be allowed to practice under a special quack license, which would alert patients to the fact that they weren't going to a mainstream doctor. He added a really interesting wrinkle, which was that a quack license would be conditional on keeping lab-grade records of treatments and results, so that quack treatments would get empirical testing with informed volunteers.
There's an annotated edition that is much more than "decent".
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Annotated-Alice/Lewis-Carroll/e/9780393048476/?itm=1&USRI=annotated+alice
It's not one of my usual sources, but on a first reading it seems decent:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100304_antimatter.htm
Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?
Is it used for pipe radiography? Seems you'd prefer a gamma emitter for that.
Is it being bred? Surely a reactor designed for isotope manufacture would be more convenient.
>Does he feel ripped off, or flattered?
"Royalties are the sincerest form of flattery".
You couldn't afford to make every day Christmas, but you wouldn't want to do without it altogether, so we've compromised on picking one day of the year to do it regularly.
My wife would have gotten her Valentine's Day gift anyway, but it is fun to time it for V-Day to underline the intent behind it.
Unexciting but useful commentary on the CRU data.
How would boxing lessons help against gangs?
Maybe the bullies in your school were loners but in mine they hung out together.
Military over-the-horizon radars put out a lot of power.
Climate is the signal, weather is the noise. I can't predict the weather in Seattle a year from today but I'm on pretty safe ground saying it will be a drizzly month.
A friend of mine worked on an earlier attempt to locate a data center in Iceland. They mapped out a place somewhere on the west side that they believed to be seismically stable.
Volcanoes are scary though. You can build miles away from them and still get your HVAC clogged if the wind blows ash your way.
To advocate that idea seriously, it's not enough to be an anti-Muslim bigot: you have to be anti-Semitic as well.
If you search based on ethnicity, they'll just recruit people like John Walker Lindh. Our enemies are perfectly capable of thought.
Also, look up the number of dangerous actions by non-Muslims.
Is this exercise realistic given the need to protect against well hidden back doors, tampering by election officials, and sloppy procedures (like letting a vendor install uncertified patches just before an election)? They tested only a narrow range of dangers.
The right way to do something like this is at design time.
They deserve credit, though, for doing things so much better than the US.
No, it can't, not on any car remotely within the normal range. Not even close.
To see this, simply compare the 0-60 time (which is what the engine can do) with the 60-0 time (which is what the brakes can do).
In a Prius, the gas engine is always connected to the planet carrier of the power split device, and the ring gear is always connected to the wheels. In neutral, the electric system is neither supplying nor consuming power and the sun gear idles, canceling out the gas engine.
If, that is, the gas engine is even running. With the car in neutral, the only reason for the car to switch on the gas engine would be to re-warm the emission control system. Or for backwards compatibility if someone steps on the accelerator.
What if the machines "pass" this contest?
A real attack would likely involve more than a few days of effort, and might well have access to inside information not available to the red teams in the contest.
If nobody breaks in, that will prove very little about the security of the machines.
Among rhetorical devices, triple negatives are not the least unpopular.
Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.
>In the case of Ivies, "Who you know" counts as a prerequisite for getting in, not a benefit of going there.
My firsthand experience and observations at Princeton contradict this statement. My college girlfriend was from a ranch in Idaho and the daughter of a Marine noncom who I can guarantee you had no upper-class connections. Dorm neighbors were from everywhere from Egypt to Ghana, not East Coast elite.