Last time I checked, big telecom companies aren't allowed to lose money on their services. That's anti-competitive, and it's illegal, around here anyway.
You need to go much simpler, for a lot of reasons. Humans need to use it. Humans need to choose to use it. Humans need to not go around it.
I think you need to base your solution around a presumed-infected node. I find working with the weeds to be better than trying to design a planter that weeds can't find.
Given "Machine A" as the user's actual workstation, internal, no outside access.
Given "Machine B" as the external-facing node, with whatever internet access you deem necessary, and we'll presume that it gets infected as a matter of routine. Maybe you wipe it daily, maybe you virtualize it. Maybe you leave it infected because it just doesn't matter.
I think you design a solution to transfer files from B to A. I've never heard of any malware jumping through an FTP connection. So maybe you transfer from B to A via a simple FTP connection (probably connecting from A to B). A simple batch-file script can do just as well.
This presumes that the file analysis is done on B. Otherwise, you could FTP from B to C (connection initiated from C), analyze it. If it's good, FTP from C to A, otherwise wipe C, just in case.
The point is, A has access to B and C, but B and C have no access to A.
Here's hoping this takes the same path as light drinking before driving. Now it's the childred; soon it'll be the adults too. Anyone else here spend an hour every day just waiting for people to finish their sentences across a pause to look at a smartphone for no good reason?
yeah, but that's easily resolved by buying an ip address, and the appropriate service. Although I agree that does quickly destroy the budget-apeal of option 3.
is there a reason that you don't just have your own mailserver? you have three options:
option 1: buy/pay for a hosted/managed/co-lo/virtual/private-cloud webserver somewhere. you can pay between $5 and $500 per month, and install whatever you choose.
option 2: buy/pay for an account with someone who's already done option 1 above. you can pay between $2/mailbox and $100 per month. I would charge you $25/month for many mailboxes. You can manage them however you choose.
option 3: buy a domain name, and point it to you static or dynamic home ip address. run your own mailserver at home. it'll cost you nothing beyond the domain & dns level of probably $25 per year. presuming your connection is reasonable -- and e-mail compensates for occasional fluctuations anyway -- you'll have everything under your own roof.
In all three cases, you have 100% privacy. Options 1 & 3 let you have whatever features you can imagine. And no matter what you'll have far more control than you've ever had before.
Personally, in your position, I'd go the game clan method. Get three buddies, pool your pennies, choose option 1 above, spend $50-$100/month on a virtually-dedicated/private-cloud server that starts off with some reasonable package of carp already setup for you, and take it from there. My neighbour offers such packages at every price range imaginable.
just like your software supports 32 so you can run on 32 windows, so does windows support 32 so it can run 32 something else. I'd have thought that you could see your compatibility goals in the next cascade.
all it takes is one special device, that works perfectly save for a huge architecture shift. not every application needs more security, and more performance. Some are just perfect as-is, and simply need an OS that's readily available.
Think about something as simple as banking software. We know that most are still age-old DOS. Imagine one that was "upgraded" to XP ten years ago. It's been fine. It's already leaps and bounds above all of the other banks. No one wants to rebuild it now.
It doesn't need more performance, it's working fine. It doesn't need more security, it's just a bunch of in-house banking tools like mortgage calculators. But you want them to rebuild it for 64bit only because they might have a compatibility issue and don't want to retest the whole entire thing to figure out where?
So you can still have the government sue at&t for ripping off consumers?
Either you can or you can't seek governmental justice for business affairs. It would seem, to me, that seeking justice from the courts would be a constitutional right. I would have expected that there would be nothing that you could do or could sign that would limit your right to do so.
Of course, it's not my constitution -- something that I'm thankful I've been able to say repeatedly all year.
But that's just one plane and ~100 passengers, and you need to get through eight layers of security to do it. Contrast that with killing a thousand people at the front door.
The TSA adds security somewhere between the airport front doors, and the airplane. I get that.
But they don't stop anyone from entering through the front doors. So they clearly aren't protecting the thousands of people waiting in-line before check-in and before security. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of me.
Then they check my luggage, which goes through airport tunnels, and ultimately gets loaded onto the aircraft, long before I board the plane. So my luggage is on the plane when I'm not on the plane. So they clearly aren't protecting the planes on the tarmac. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of you.
If the people aren't being protected, and the planes aren't being protected, then what actually is being protected? The "flight" itself? So I can destroy the people, and I can destroy the planes, I just can't destroy them when they are mid-flight?
So, my city has a very large, very international airport. The airport is surrounded by a chain-link fence, eight feet tall. On the other side of the fence is a two-lane road. On the other side of the road is a two storey building. Landing planes fly ~500 feet above the roof of this building. Maybe closer to ~200 feet.
I guess it's a good thing that bad people are don't have big guns, or any interest in stuff on the ground.
Of course, there are four highways that enter the city of 10 million people. It's a good thing the TSA isn't responsible for securing our highways. Can you imagine? Check every car that enters the city, that could, in theory, shut down the roads with a simple traffic accident. Can you imagine the mayhem of commuters not being able to leave the city to go home at the end of the day? And yet, zero security.
There's something to be said for not making yourself a target.
Wow, I like that you think you can authenticate my name. "Holophrastic" has been my name for over 25 years. I paid for it. I continue to pay for it. I pay taxes with it. People call me by it. It's on my credit cards. It's on my health card. It appears on my caller-id. And, unlike "John Smith", you won't take more than a few minutes to find me by it, be it through a web search or in a phone book.
But really, I never said your arguments need your real name. Simply a name to group them with your other arguments. One lonely anonymous post isn't a conversation. Ten anonymous posts can be ten humans or one human. The conversation is very different.
Points don't sound like penalties. How many points until there's an effect? If it's a hundred points, then that makes a lot of sense.
On a separate note, as an entrepreneur, I don't get paid when I don't work.
You know what sucks even more than not earning money when I'm sick? Paying an employee, who's home sick, while I'm also home sick not getting paid a dime.
Sounds like the dumbest and riskiest thing to do with blood. I'd bet that there are huge risks with blood transfusions.
Long-term things like immune-system fatigue, big things like contamination, and small things like whoops-wrong-blood-type.
When you're severely injured, and in a hospital, and doing it rarely, those risks are certainly and obviously worth undertaking.
But voluntarilly taking those risks, in the hopes of a very-long-term benefit, well, how many of those risks need to go wrong before you've made things worse instead of better?
so there's a president that presides over nothing I guess. What's the point?! Too many chiefs? Not enough indians? Pick a leader to lead, and fire the leader that doesn't. This is just stupid.
If, instead of "onelogin" it were called what it actually is "a basket for your eggs", maybe then people wouldn't put all of their passwords into it.
Perhaps, one shouldn't put all of one's eggs into one basket. Just saying. Maybe "security" isn't about putting everything in one place.
Oh wait, what an old fashioned way of thinking. Let's modernize it shall we? Give all of your sensitive and valuable stuff to one person to hold -- oh yeah, and trust them both to keep it all safe and to not use it themselves.
We don't come to a stop at traffic lights because other cars need to go through. We stop at red lights at 3am when there isn't another car for miles.
We stop at intersections because that's where absolutely anything is allowed to happen.
"constant speed" doesn't exist with construction, weather, birds, animals, clouds, rain, sun, winter. Oh yeah, and turning.
Intersections aren't intersections, they are cross-roads. An intersection is where a road is no longer a straight-away. We assume that we can drive smoothly on a straight-away. Even in snow and ice and fog we can still drive 140kph on a straight road. We don't dare do so through an intersection -- there are too many things that happen in an intersection.
If you want to have less traffic, you need fewer cars or more roads. I'm really sorry, but more people in a smaller space just isn't solvable. Welcome to density.
And besides, this is all pointless. Even if you could magically get twice as many cars to flow at full speed on a road, those cars need to go somewhere. City planners intentionally put bottlenecks into traffic areas to ensure that congestion is, say, on the highway and not in-front of your house.
Ah, but isn't that just the point? I'm going to say that while many other lifestyles certainly "seem" like the more stable and smoother option, they really aren't. Big companies churn more employees, medium companies are bought out and destroyed more often than small ones, peons get thrown around more.
I'm a big fan of cradle-to-grave calculations. When I look at what-we'll-call "common" career paths, I see people going without work an average of 1 month every year. Being between jobs, seasonal hours, not-enough-work, et cetera. I obviously don't get that. And while sometimes I work additional hours to get something done that should have taken less time, sometimes I get more money for something that should have taken a lot more time.
The end result of my observations is that my career is far more stable on a year-to-year basis. I'll admit that a common career is more stable month-to-month, and company-to-company, but those are all highly illusionary. I don't get paid month-to-month, and I can certainly have a downturn in business at any time. But looking back over the years, I've far-beaten the common path.
The mystery is scary. For example, right now, I have zero promise of any income whatsoever in the fall. But we all know that by the summer I'll have fall planned.
Whereas a common employee may know their income for the fall already, because it's a contracted position, but any employee can be fired for any number of reasons, including the very same downturn in business at the upper levels. That I can see it makes it scary, but it doesn't make it any more risky.
I've got news for you: people are heartless and ask why I didn't prepare better too. Ask me how many times someone's insisted that I should finish my university degree so I have something to fall back on. It's been twenty years, and they're still buggin' me. Most people just expect that the only valid option is the most common option. The yforget that the most common result is not success.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are big enough, they could keep it up long enough to destroy smaller telcos. That's the problem. And that's why it's illegal.
Have you ever heard of malware that jumps through an ftp connection?
Last time I checked, big telecom companies aren't allowed to lose money on their services. That's anti-competitive, and it's illegal, around here anyway.
You need to go much simpler, for a lot of reasons. Humans need to use it. Humans need to choose to use it. Humans need to not go around it.
I think you need to base your solution around a presumed-infected node. I find working with the weeds to be better than trying to design a planter that weeds can't find.
Given "Machine A" as the user's actual workstation, internal, no outside access.
Given "Machine B" as the external-facing node, with whatever internet access you deem necessary, and we'll presume that it gets infected as a matter of routine. Maybe you wipe it daily, maybe you virtualize it. Maybe you leave it infected because it just doesn't matter.
I think you design a solution to transfer files from B to A. I've never heard of any malware jumping through an FTP connection. So maybe you transfer from B to A via a simple FTP connection (probably connecting from A to B). A simple batch-file script can do just as well.
This presumes that the file analysis is done on B. Otherwise, you could FTP from B to C (connection initiated from C), analyze it. If it's good, FTP from C to A, otherwise wipe C, just in case.
The point is, A has access to B and C, but B and C have no access to A.
Here's hoping this takes the same path as light drinking before driving. Now it's the childred; soon it'll be the adults too. Anyone else here spend an hour every day just waiting for people to finish their sentences across a pause to look at a smartphone for no good reason?
Safe neighbourhoods count for a lot. No one's breaking into my house.
yeah, but that's easily resolved by buying an ip address, and the appropriate service. Although I agree that does quickly destroy the budget-apeal of option 3.
is there a reason that you don't just have your own mailserver? you have three options:
option 1: buy/pay for a hosted/managed/co-lo/virtual/private-cloud webserver somewhere. you can pay between $5 and $500 per month, and install whatever you choose.
option 2: buy/pay for an account with someone who's already done option 1 above. you can pay between $2/mailbox and $100 per month. I would charge you $25/month for many mailboxes. You can manage them however you choose.
option 3: buy a domain name, and point it to you static or dynamic home ip address. run your own mailserver at home. it'll cost you nothing beyond the domain & dns level of probably $25 per year. presuming your connection is reasonable -- and e-mail compensates for occasional fluctuations anyway -- you'll have everything under your own roof.
In all three cases, you have 100% privacy. Options 1 & 3 let you have whatever features you can imagine. And no matter what you'll have far more control than you've ever had before.
Personally, in your position, I'd go the game clan method. Get three buddies, pool your pennies, choose option 1 above, spend $50-$100/month on a virtually-dedicated/private-cloud server that starts off with some reasonable package of carp already setup for you, and take it from there. My neighbour offers such packages at every price range imaginable.
just like your software supports 32 so you can run on 32 windows, so does windows support 32 so it can run 32 something else. I'd have thought that you could see your compatibility goals in the next cascade.
all it takes is one special device, that works perfectly save for a huge architecture shift. not every application needs more security, and more performance. Some are just perfect as-is, and simply need an OS that's readily available.
Think about something as simple as banking software. We know that most are still age-old DOS. Imagine one that was "upgraded" to XP ten years ago. It's been fine. It's already leaps and bounds above all of the other banks. No one wants to rebuild it now.
It doesn't need more performance, it's working fine. It doesn't need more security, it's just a bunch of in-house banking tools like mortgage calculators. But you want them to rebuild it for 64bit only because they might have a compatibility issue and don't want to retest the whole entire thing to figure out where?
So you can still have the government sue at&t for ripping off consumers?
Either you can or you can't seek governmental justice for business affairs. It would seem, to me, that seeking justice from the courts would be a constitutional right. I would have expected that there would be nothing that you could do or could sign that would limit your right to do so.
Of course, it's not my constitution -- something that I'm thankful I've been able to say repeatedly all year.
I don't understand. Why do you have a constitution that can be signed away?
But that's just one plane and ~100 passengers, and you need to get through eight layers of security to do it. Contrast that with killing a thousand people at the front door.
The TSA adds security somewhere between the airport front doors, and the airplane. I get that.
But they don't stop anyone from entering through the front doors. So they clearly aren't protecting the thousands of people waiting in-line before check-in and before security. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of me.
Then they check my luggage, which goes through airport tunnels, and ultimately gets loaded onto the aircraft, long before I board the plane. So my luggage is on the plane when I'm not on the plane. So they clearly aren't protecting the planes on the tarmac. So I can clearly not choose the wine in-front of you.
If the people aren't being protected, and the planes aren't being protected, then what actually is being protected? The "flight" itself? So I can destroy the people, and I can destroy the planes, I just can't destroy them when they are mid-flight?
So, my city has a very large, very international airport. The airport is surrounded by a chain-link fence, eight feet tall. On the other side of the fence is a two-lane road. On the other side of the road is a two storey building. Landing planes fly ~500 feet above the roof of this building. Maybe closer to ~200 feet.
I guess it's a good thing that bad people are don't have big guns, or any interest in stuff on the ground.
Of course, there are four highways that enter the city of 10 million people. It's a good thing the TSA isn't responsible for securing our highways. Can you imagine? Check every car that enters the city, that could, in theory, shut down the roads with a simple traffic accident. Can you imagine the mayhem of commuters not being able to leave the city to go home at the end of the day? And yet, zero security.
There's something to be said for not making yourself a target.
Wow, I like that you think you can authenticate my name. "Holophrastic" has been my name for over 25 years. I paid for it. I continue to pay for it. I pay taxes with it. People call me by it. It's on my credit cards. It's on my health card. It appears on my caller-id. And, unlike "John Smith", you won't take more than a few minutes to find me by it, be it through a web search or in a phone book.
But really, I never said your arguments need your real name. Simply a name to group them with your other arguments. One lonely anonymous post isn't a conversation. Ten anonymous posts can be ten humans or one human. The conversation is very different.
Your arguments are worth nothing if you won't put your name to them.
Like I said before, counting "points" isn't penalizing anybody. It's counting. The article makes no mention of any sort of penalty of any kind.
Counting "points" isn't penalizing anybody. Your arguments are worth nothing if you won't put your name to them.
Points don't sound like penalties. How many points until there's an effect? If it's a hundred points, then that makes a lot of sense.
On a separate note, as an entrepreneur, I don't get paid when I don't work.
You know what sucks even more than not earning money when I'm sick? Paying an employee, who's home sick, while I'm also home sick not getting paid a dime.
Sounds like the dumbest and riskiest thing to do with blood. I'd bet that there are huge risks with blood transfusions.
Long-term things like immune-system fatigue,
big things like contamination, and
small things like whoops-wrong-blood-type.
When you're severely injured, and in a hospital, and doing it rarely, those risks are certainly and obviously worth undertaking.
But voluntarilly taking those risks, in the hopes of a very-long-term benefit, well, how many of those risks need to go wrong before you've made things worse instead of better?
I'm thinking the answer is only one.
so there's a president that presides over nothing I guess. What's the point?! Too many chiefs? Not enough indians? Pick a leader to lead, and fire the leader that doesn't. This is just stupid.
She lost because given the choice between a woman and warlord, the usa will choose a warlord each and every time.
If, instead of "onelogin" it were called what it actually is "a basket for your eggs", maybe then people wouldn't put all of their passwords into it.
Perhaps, one shouldn't put all of one's eggs into one basket. Just saying. Maybe "security" isn't about putting everything in one place.
Oh wait, what an old fashioned way of thinking. Let's modernize it shall we? Give all of your sensitive and valuable stuff to one person to hold -- oh yeah, and trust them both to keep it all safe and to not use it themselves.
Better?
I said this twenty five years ago, when I was 12. I said it because it was predicted back then too.
It's been twenty five years, and I've learned something.
Socient doesn't move that fast.
Sorry.
We don't come to a stop at traffic lights because other cars need to go through. We stop at red lights at 3am when there isn't another car for miles.
We stop at intersections because that's where absolutely anything is allowed to happen.
"constant speed" doesn't exist with construction, weather, birds, animals, clouds, rain, sun, winter. Oh yeah, and turning.
Intersections aren't intersections, they are cross-roads. An intersection is where a road is no longer a straight-away. We assume that we can drive smoothly on a straight-away. Even in snow and ice and fog we can still drive 140kph on a straight road. We don't dare do so through an intersection -- there are too many things that happen in an intersection.
If you want to have less traffic, you need fewer cars or more roads. I'm really sorry, but more people in a smaller space just isn't solvable. Welcome to density.
And besides, this is all pointless. Even if you could magically get twice as many cars to flow at full speed on a road, those cars need to go somewhere. City planners intentionally put bottlenecks into traffic areas to ensure that congestion is, say, on the highway and not in-front of your house.
Ah, but isn't that just the point? I'm going to say that while many other lifestyles certainly "seem" like the more stable and smoother option, they really aren't. Big companies churn more employees, medium companies are bought out and destroyed more often than small ones, peons get thrown around more.
I'm a big fan of cradle-to-grave calculations. When I look at what-we'll-call "common" career paths, I see people going without work an average of 1 month every year. Being between jobs, seasonal hours, not-enough-work, et cetera. I obviously don't get that. And while sometimes I work additional hours to get something done that should have taken less time, sometimes I get more money for something that should have taken a lot more time.
The end result of my observations is that my career is far more stable on a year-to-year basis. I'll admit that a common career is more stable month-to-month, and company-to-company, but those are all highly illusionary. I don't get paid month-to-month, and I can certainly have a downturn in business at any time. But looking back over the years, I've far-beaten the common path.
The mystery is scary. For example, right now, I have zero promise of any income whatsoever in the fall. But we all know that by the summer I'll have fall planned.
Whereas a common employee may know their income for the fall already, because it's a contracted position, but any employee can be fired for any number of reasons, including the very same downturn in business at the upper levels. That I can see it makes it scary, but it doesn't make it any more risky.
I've got news for you: people are heartless and ask why I didn't prepare better too. Ask me how many times someone's insisted that I should finish my university degree so I have something to fall back on. It's been twenty years, and they're still buggin' me. Most people just expect that the only valid option is the most common option. The yforget that the most common result is not success.