China is not as complex. China has a highly centralized autocratic power structure. Their commander of their military is largely the head of the country. Not the president. You can tell because in times of crisis such as TIanaman Square, the people in charge of different branches will start changing hats. And person ultimately in control will be the commander of the military. Which is again, not the president.
The ways in which china is actually simplified via its power structure are many.
In the US, the political gestalt is relevant. In china it something to be controlled but which does not impose itself on the politicians or bureaucrats.
A simplified way of thinking about the US would be to imagine a group of high school students in a stereotypical horror movie. This is useful because the stereotypes can stand in as abstractions of the political mass.
Now, watch that group of teenagers in various situations. Depending on the situation, different teenagers will be in control of the situation. The brain nerd is going to be queried for his opinion when brainy nerd stuff comes up. The macho jock guy is going to be the most relevant when there is some kind of physical threat to the group. One or some collective of the girls might be relevant in various other situation.
And so on. The point is that the people that make decisions changes based on the circumstances.
Your violent alcoholic uncle is usually a joke. But if someone in your family needs to charge into melee or risk getting a bottle cracked off his head... he's probably going to be the guy that steps up. And no one in the group is going to suppress him in that situation.
In the context of the US, the economic and business people are relevant if there is money to be made. They care about that and will buy access... and on top of that, most people appreciate that they're the best people to send into that situation because they'll know what matters and what doesn't for business.
But the way they think and their priorities are specific to their subculture.
Now if you destroy the economic interests in that situation then the business people will abandon it and you'll probably get some faction of the diplomatic wing showing up to make nice with people.
If that all goes to hell and people start getting killed, then diplomats are going to get suppressed and you'll swing over to the hawks. And the hawks naturally have a very different way of looking at the world than do the other groups. Scare the country or present some sort of credible threat to the nation and these sorts of people that normally don't get a lot of attention or authority... are suddenly the most powerful people in the society.
This rapid shift in mentality confuses other powers because they get used to dealing with one faction and they assume that faction is the whole country or will regardless call the shots in any situation.
As such, the peace and diplomacy crew are often assumed to be the only faction in the US of relevance. Enemy powers get used to the dithering of this group when there are minor hostilities. But what happens when a major incursion happens is that these people lose all power. Literally all. They're dog food. And the often irrelevant hawks step into place... and basically do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you don't understand American culture, then you don't grasp that the diplomatic core is the softly spoken words. And confusing that for weakness is a mistake.
The rage, ferocity, and merciless of the American people when this line is crossed is frequently a surprise to rival powers. They don't see it coming.
They get used to in some cases decades of inaction, tolerance, and unconditional forgiveness for various slights or transgressions. But the line is crossed... and things change completely.
We have far more factions than that. Different groups have more credibility in different situations. If you change the conditi
We have strong business interests and the chinese NEED the western markets. The chinese also have ZERO experience with modern warfare so they don't want to fight the sole remaining super power even in limited engagements. Anything capable of firing back won't be touched.
The US of course doesn't want a problem with china either. Our concern is the sea lanes. The free movement of trade goods by sea is a center piece of US strategic policy. What US strategic policy even is often not understood by most people. Most people don't understand that there is a design in the US's over all agenda.
Free trade is critical. It cannot be allowed to be threatened. The exception obviously being if it serves our interests but it rarely does.
We're generally okay with whatever china wants to do so long as they don't invade any country we're allied with, invade a country that changes our strategic posture via our allies, or interferes with trade.
If China doesn't do these things then we're going to just do business with them.
Their actions in the South China sea have been troubling because it threatens trade, upsets maritime law, and makes the US and her allies by proxy appear weak. The US is therefore going to be interested in shutting that down to protect trade lanes, preserve the maritime status quo that has existed since the Victorians, and because to not act would cost the US "face" which is quite important in diplomacy.
If you respect me and I tell you "do that and there is going to be trouble" this has a different effect than if you don't respect me and I say "there will be trouble." Do you see? A lack of respect means the US will have to prove itself by force more often. But if the US is respected then this is not necessary. The US can simply say "stop doing that" and the situation is resolved.
The dynamics of US, Chinese, and the various pacific partners of the US is complicated. The US is currently engaging in a "shift to china" policy where we're stepping down involvement in the middle east and focusing on East Asia.
Our allies in the region are asking for this change and China does not want it. So you see... there will be trouble. But China's policy has been thus far to do what it can get away with and to not do what it cannot get away with.
The problem China is going to run into is that the US is a very complex culture. We are like an onion of personalities and interests. And in different contexts, different layers of our cultural onion are preeminent. Most cultures that try to best us in something get used to the way we act in one context and then get surprised when we act a very different way in what is to us a very different context.
Take for example the attack on US embassies. Osama bin ladin believed that because the US reacted one way to attacks on their embassies that the US would act the same way if he blew up a building in Manhattan. Now from the outside, this seems logical. The US had many attacks against it by terrorists and generally didn't do anything. In one case we fired some cruise missiles at a terrorist camp which could have been abandoned for all we knew. But the attack on the trade center buildings triggered a massive response.
This is typical of American interactions with various powers that try to anticipate our reactions without understanding our culture.
Another example was the attack on Pearl Harbor by the imperial japanese. The imperial japanese had been doing things to US shipping and interests in the pacific for years. We ignored it. The japanese assumed that because we didn't react to those provocations that they could sink our pacific fleet in a surprise attack and the worst that would happen is we'd send them a strongly worded letter. Yamamoto who had gone to college in the US and had a better grasp of US culture knew that the attack would trigger a massive response. He tried to tell his peers this but they didn't believe him. So instead he did his best to make the atta
The notion that security is expensive is largely a product of hiring people that don't have the training to do it properly. The result is that you have to hire a lot of unproductive people or use a lot of consultants that basically do the job for the your IT staff.
The real cost of security is political and not economic.
An outfit with proper security has the security team in much the same position as a doctor has on a naval ship. That is, within their sphere of expertise, they cannot be overruled... even by the captain of the ship.
What this means is that in matters of security, the CIO must be able to overrule the CEO. And the various IT admins that are responsible for security, must be able to dictate how information flows through the network. If a manager wants to install angry birds on his workstation, then you have to be able to tell him no.
I had one collegue that had a pretty big IT petty cash fund. And he'd use it to amongst other things to buy ipads for senior managers that demanded they be able to conduct personal business company systems. He'd get an ipad, connect it to the isolated wifi network that didn't connect to anything but the internet. And then he'd hand them an ipad that linked to it.
Its a lot cheaper to hand someone in power an ipad than it is to compromise the entire security system so that the fucktard can do social media or personal email on company hardware.
This is not expensive. It requires political power and disapline. That is... you cannot compromise. You explain to the banker, that it makes about as much sense to comply with what he's asking as it would be to give someone an excessive loan that you know they couldn't pay back.
You have to go around and explain it to these people in terms they understand. So they get that your sphere has certain constraints and objectives and it would be as sensible for me to let Joe use his personal email on the workstation as it would be for Joe from marketing to promote the competitor's product in our own paid ad campaign.
Its dumb. You explain that it is dumb. And by preventing people from doing dumb stuff the network is actually very secure.
I can go through a lot of different very simple things that don't cost money but secure the network very tightly.
As to software people not understanding how their software can get compromised, that just means they don't have a resident hacker. In most cases you don't need more than one. It isn't expensive. You just have ONE guy that is paid to fuck with your code.
These people are best if they're not consultants because they have to work with your staff in the long term. Personal relationships are also important. People need to understand "oh, that's right, Jeff will fucking make an ass of me if I submit this code. What did he show me the other day? Oh that's right, if I code it this way it will not be bypass the encryption if he pokes the program with a stick."
It isn't expensive.
It does cost "something" but so does the legal department and the accounting department.
Why does the company spend money on a team of lawyers? Because they're afraid of lawsuits, because they need the legal team to draw up contracts, because the legal team understands how to comply with laws, etc.
A lot of stuff. And it all comes out of the bottom line. Yet companies have these legal teams because they understand that they have to have them. And companies without them get sued, fuck up contracts, and get fined by the government.
The IT security department is useful for similar reasons. Only they're a lot cheaper and benefit the quality of your product a lot more.
A product that cannot be hacked if used properly is very valuable. You will trust it in more extreme situations. Life and death. And if your product is competitive in the life and death market then you can charge a lot more.
Think of medical tech. Is it doing anything more than most consumer grade tech of a similar nature? Not rea
Well they beat us into space with the first satellite because we weren't really trying at the time. We were more focused on things with some actual practical value.
As to them beating us multiple times, once our program got going, we left them in the dust.
As to terrifying us with nuclear weapons. Even a chimp with a shotgun is menacing.
And what did their brief moment profit them?
Imagine what would have happened to Russia if they had adopted a friendly posture to the US instead of an anatongistic one. Look at what China has achieved and they weren't even that friendly to us. They were just willing to hold up their end of contracts.
And in return for that they've profited greatly.
Russia could have been a modern first world country. With wealth and power that would be the envy of the world.
They have enormous territory and huge natural resources. They have a relatively skilled population and a reasonable industrial base. They stand between east asia and europe.
All trade between those powers could flow through Russia.
Instead it goes by container ship bypassing russian territory by sea.
Their natural resources are poorly exploited. Their industrial base has been squandered on military production for obsolete weapons for a war that will never happen.
They were given everything and they pissed it all away because their country is run by idiots and has almost always been run by idiots.
They have the occasional bright spark... the Peter the Great or the Gorbachev... but then they go right back to being morons. And for that they lose everything.
I often think of them as the new Byzantines because they make the same sorts of mistakes. The great Eastern Roman empire had every advantage. And they pissed it all away by fucking over their only people that could NOT fuck over. Their western allies. And for that, Constantinople fell to the Turk. The Eastern empire could have controlled much of the meditaranian and certainly the black sea. They could have been infused with endless hordes of Western armies that would crush their foes under foot.
They pissed it all away and were devoured by Muslim world.
Putin is a fool. We forgave the Russians after the end of the Cold war. We wanted to build profitable mutual relationships. The Russians played along until they thought they had leverage, then they betrayed us.
They tried to use their role in the oil supply to leverage political concessions. This is a betrayal. Then they used their position in our shared space operations to get political concessions.
The Russians didn't realize they were being tested. We let them participate in something that didn't really matter to see if they would betray us. They did. Now no one trusts them again.
They talk about a freight line from Alaska, across the Aleutian islands, and into Siberia creating a transcontinental rail network. Comical. No one is trusting them with an investment like that. We know that once we build and depend on it, the Russians will threaten to cut it off if we don't give them something.
Does France or England threaten each other to close the chunnel if they have a political dispute? No, they don't. Because they know that would destroy trust between the countries.
Russia is not that clever. They betrayed Germany with the oil and they betrayed the US with the space program. The comments like "if the americans want to get back into space perhaps they should use a trampoline" showed it was a mistake for us to rely on them or trust them with anything.
And if you can't trust a trade partner, then it limits the sort of trade you can do the least profitable kinds. Things where quality isn't important or where you count on people to hold up their end of contracts.
The Chinese broke with the Russians largely because they realized the Russians were bad allies and could not be relied upon for
No I don't. I include insults in my posts because they're justified. There are some profoundly stupid people on this board. You are personally an excellent example of my point.
But I do include reasons and an argument outside of the insult for why I conclude things.
They've got little more than rusting cold war hand-me-downs that are horribly obsolete and few Potemkin village weapons platforms that look cool but don't actually work.
Half of it is about as scary as the death star from the star wars movie "actually" is... aka not at all because it isn't real. It's a model with some special effects.
I'd worry about most of their shit about as much as I'd worry about dinosaurs eating people in my city.
You can only pass such a law because the public isn't paying attention and doesn't care.
You fuck with something everyone notices and the politics change remarkably.
Uber's success is based on this political principle. They don't ask for permission from the local city council. They just start providing service. And by the time the government gets around to trying to ban them, people already like the service and banning them would be politically expensive. So Uber operates on a policy of it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Google has also already faced off against EU member nations for similar things. Google's response has been to terminate services in those countries. This creates a political backlash against the politicians and the laws are basically dropped.
So really the issue is who cares more?
Your idiot politicians doing something they don't really care about pushed along by a few marginal lobbying groups or the general public that likes these services?
You can't win. Don't embarrass yourself by trying. You're pissing into the wind.
Bingo, one of you brain dead ACs said that only a 12 year old would have made the comment I made.
Now what is the basis for that comment, your brainless sack of shit?
Cultural convention and personal experience.
You can't base that comment on anything else.
And to that point, I responded that your conventions were little more than cultural taboos. Affectations of your society. Why do I have to care what your culture considers valid behavior? Why does your culture have preeminence over mine?
Linus Trovald has been cited repeatedly by people as being very rude to idiots. He'll cus them out and call them morons. He'll say their code is sloppy shit unworthy of any role in the project. He'll say the people that wrote the code are themselves idiots that due to their intellectual defiency are unworthy of contributing to the product as anything more than makers of sandwiches.
Now... that is my culture. I'm not saying I'm Linus. I'm saying rather that we share a common culture. And in our culture, adults do and will cus out fucktards for being fucktards. It isn't a demonstration of immaturity in our culture. It is rather our responsibility to challenge stupid people in our midst and show that by that challenge they are our inferiors.
So when you say "only a 12 year old would say X" in my culture that isn't true. You're attempting a kind of cultural imperialism. You are implying that your culture has a right to pull rank on my culture and force it to adapt its social norms to yours.
I reject that, bingo. Your culture is full of far too many idiots with far too much undeserved credibility.
My culture has problems but that isn't one of them. Fools are not suffered gladly in my culture. We label them as such and isolate them so they can't harm our societies. If anything, I think my culture is superior to yours. And I would sooner impose my culture on yours than permit you to impose yours on mine.
Apparently the portion of the US government that keeps track of government employees with security clearance didn't have any IT security team until 2013.
Your argument is now that "well people in charge don't agree with you so you must be wrong."
This is an appeal to authority. A common logical fallacy and the fact that you relied on it means you're something of an idiot.
My point rests on the notion that these systems can be secured cheaply at the price of limiting funcionality to actual NEED. So for example, my systems can't go on facebook. They can't connect to your private email. You can't do you your personal banking... and they're basically just not YOUR personal machines. they are the company's or the government's machines. And they do what either organization needs them to do. But nothing else. And by limiting them to only be able to do what they need to do, hacking them is almost impossible.
For example does workstation 1 need to talk to workstation 2 directly? No? Then disallow that so that workstations can only talk to the servers directly... and all communications to workstations occur indirectly with the communication being bounced through the server. Set this up at an appliance/hardware level. Most enterprise routers will let you do this.
Little things like that make infecting machines with worms a lot harder because you have to infect the server to spread a worm from workstation 1 to workstation 2. If the Server will not run any code or script that hasn't been authorized by the admin then spreading a worm is almost impossible right there. Yes, a workstation might get a worm. But it will be isolated on one machine.
And that is a very simple security measure that the user won't even notice but which makes the network a lot more secure.
I do stuff like that... and it means a lot of my users don't like me.
I'm referred to as "Dr No."... because I mostly just tell them no when they ask to do stupid shit. And of course I'm evil and want to take over the world... and I have metal robot hands.
Bingo, for me to have lied there, I would have had to known it was not true. You already admitted you fucked up and I didn't lie. So why are you now lying by reversing course and saying I lied about something that you know I didn't lie about?
I mean... who do you think you're fooling here?
Not me obviously. No one else is reading this... so... its you and me... and I'm not fooled... so what is the point?
You say I can't undo my record... but I don't need to. And unlike you, I'm not afraid of my record. You are afraid of your record. And yet you presume threaten me with mine? You're a joke.
I am quite happy to stand on my record. Unlike you, I'm not a coward.;)
This thread? who cares. You're following me all over the forum. Who cares what thread we're talking about anymore.
It doesn't matter to you. Why should it matter to me? You already admitted in one of these threads that you were in error on the whole lying thing... You know it. I know it... so who's the liar now?
"Well, maybe if you're 12. Mature adults do not conduct themselves with such terms when they want to be taken seriously.
Actually, no. Even a 12 year old would only use that term in anger. No mature person would use it any other way." How do you know what mature adults do or do not do? And what is this about being taken seriously?
What's funny about all this is that you actually believe your line of bullshit. Which means you've never met someone that spoke harshly to you coldly.
See, I don't need to be angry to call someone a fucktard or to say someone is garbage. It isn't a requirement. I do the math. I add up the figures and then cite the conclusion.
(Stupid comment + lack of awareness) * in ability to process the errors when they come due = idiot.
There's no anger there.
Again, anger is an emotion born of FEAR. See someone angry and they're afraid first. Think about it.
No, idiot. Don't respond. Stop and think. Process the question. Actually think about it.
Go through your mind of people that were angry and note that they were all afraid first.
A man with no fear cannot know anger.
And the reality here is that you have no ability to threaten me so I can't know fear from you and so I can't be angry.
QED, fucktwit.
The above is quite obvious to anyone that isn't a child or with a child's grasp of the human mind.
I see people that are angry all the time. And whenever I do... i know they're afraid of something. And that is always an interesting observation. I ask myself "what are they afraid of"...
but you? you can't do anything to me. You're meaningless. And as such I can't fear you. And as I can't fear you, there is no cause for anger. For anger is a way of dealing with fear.
You can't win, little one. You are an insect challenging a man. I play with you on my fingers as you scurry across the surface of my skin. But you are nothing. I flick my wrist and you are gone.
Nope. I didn't lie about anything. I relied upon what the site told me had happened. The next time it does, I'll screen cap the error message for you.
There's no lie.
A lie requires deliberate deception. An error based on putting too much faith in an error message is not a lie by definition unless I knowingly misrepresent my statement. I did no such thing so it was not a lie.
You don't really understand what a "lie" is do you?
See, this is my issue with ACs... you're astoundingly stupid. How can you not know what a lie is and yet be so fucking dumb that you'd accuse someone of doing it?
This is why ACs need to not exist. Then we can know who the morons are and shame you into silence. The alternative is that so many of you idiots are running around sockpuppeting each other that no one knows exactly how many of you there are... at least of the really dumb ones.
I suspect there are fewer of you then it would appear. But you're very active posters.
First, "you"... that implies I did something which I didn't do.
Second, this is continued with you using the word "did" which states that I actually did something which I didn't do.
Third, "exactly" means that something precisely something and you've already admitted that I didn't lie which means I didn't exactly lie.
Fourth, there is that "you" again that suggests I did something.
Fifth, "are" again suggests a state of being but your statement is contradictory with both your own statements and reality.
Sixth, you used that word again "liar" which you already admitted I was not.... that's the part that I have a problem with... all of it. Every single bit.
Oh so now you want to claim that what is appropriate isn't a matter of culture or consensus?
Then what is your basis for saying my comments were inappropriate? Your argument is going to be "well people don't do that"... to which I pointed out that people actually do that all the time. They just don't do it at the preschool world you live in.
Talk to anyone outside of your sad, sterile, PC bubble and you'll find that amongst people that actually accomplish things... morons get called morons.
And the reason for that is that morons fuck things up. They really fuck up everything they have any control over. And so anyone that wants to accomplish something can't have morons involved in any aspect of the decision making process. It destroys the system.
As to whether I am comparable to Issac newton, I said no such thing, small minded, fucktard. I instead was pointing out that people of accomplishment and intelligence are often harsh with their inferiors.
That is my point. You'd have realized that if you weren't so fucking inferior.
There's no goal post being moved. That is what it means to lie and what it means to tell the truth.
You're the one that is goal post moving. Your claim that I lied was so stupid that even you backed off it and rather than admit you went too far you're now trying to cover your mistake with abuse.
You're pitiful.
And that's another post for me. I can't wait until the stupid thing flags me. Then I shall screen cap it and win.
Slashdot Mirror
China is not as complex. China has a highly centralized autocratic power structure. Their commander of their military is largely the head of the country. Not the president. You can tell because in times of crisis such as TIanaman Square, the people in charge of different branches will start changing hats. And person ultimately in control will be the commander of the military. Which is again, not the president.
The ways in which china is actually simplified via its power structure are many.
In the US, the political gestalt is relevant. In china it something to be controlled but which does not impose itself on the politicians or bureaucrats.
A simplified way of thinking about the US would be to imagine a group of high school students in a stereotypical horror movie. This is useful because the stereotypes can stand in as abstractions of the political mass.
Now, watch that group of teenagers in various situations. Depending on the situation, different teenagers will be in control of the situation. The brain nerd is going to be queried for his opinion when brainy nerd stuff comes up. The macho jock guy is going to be the most relevant when there is some kind of physical threat to the group. One or some collective of the girls might be relevant in various other situation.
And so on. The point is that the people that make decisions changes based on the circumstances.
Your violent alcoholic uncle is usually a joke. But if someone in your family needs to charge into melee or risk getting a bottle cracked off his head... he's probably going to be the guy that steps up. And no one in the group is going to suppress him in that situation.
In the context of the US, the economic and business people are relevant if there is money to be made. They care about that and will buy access... and on top of that, most people appreciate that they're the best people to send into that situation because they'll know what matters and what doesn't for business.
But the way they think and their priorities are specific to their subculture.
Now if you destroy the economic interests in that situation then the business people will abandon it and you'll probably get some faction of the diplomatic wing showing up to make nice with people.
If that all goes to hell and people start getting killed, then diplomats are going to get suppressed and you'll swing over to the hawks. And the hawks naturally have a very different way of looking at the world than do the other groups. Scare the country or present some sort of credible threat to the nation and these sorts of people that normally don't get a lot of attention or authority... are suddenly the most powerful people in the society.
This rapid shift in mentality confuses other powers because they get used to dealing with one faction and they assume that faction is the whole country or will regardless call the shots in any situation.
As such, the peace and diplomacy crew are often assumed to be the only faction in the US of relevance. Enemy powers get used to the dithering of this group when there are minor hostilities. But what happens when a major incursion happens is that these people lose all power. Literally all. They're dog food. And the often irrelevant hawks step into place... and basically do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you don't understand American culture, then you don't grasp that the diplomatic core is the softly spoken words. And confusing that for weakness is a mistake.
The rage, ferocity, and merciless of the American people when this line is crossed is frequently a surprise to rival powers. They don't see it coming.
They get used to in some cases decades of inaction, tolerance, and unconditional forgiveness for various slights or transgressions. But the line is crossed... and things change completely.
We have far more factions than that. Different groups have more credibility in different situations. If you change the conditi
no, shit for brains... every one of them is justified. ;)
hmmm... they are and are not. It is complicated.
We have strong business interests and the chinese NEED the western markets. The chinese also have ZERO experience with modern warfare so they don't want to fight the sole remaining super power even in limited engagements. Anything capable of firing back won't be touched.
The US of course doesn't want a problem with china either. Our concern is the sea lanes. The free movement of trade goods by sea is a center piece of US strategic policy. What US strategic policy even is often not understood by most people. Most people don't understand that there is a design in the US's over all agenda.
Free trade is critical. It cannot be allowed to be threatened. The exception obviously being if it serves our interests but it rarely does.
We're generally okay with whatever china wants to do so long as they don't invade any country we're allied with, invade a country that changes our strategic posture via our allies, or interferes with trade.
If China doesn't do these things then we're going to just do business with them.
Their actions in the South China sea have been troubling because it threatens trade, upsets maritime law, and makes the US and her allies by proxy appear weak. The US is therefore going to be interested in shutting that down to protect trade lanes, preserve the maritime status quo that has existed since the Victorians, and because to not act would cost the US "face" which is quite important in diplomacy.
If you respect me and I tell you "do that and there is going to be trouble" this has a different effect than if you don't respect me and I say "there will be trouble." Do you see? A lack of respect means the US will have to prove itself by force more often. But if the US is respected then this is not necessary. The US can simply say "stop doing that" and the situation is resolved.
The dynamics of US, Chinese, and the various pacific partners of the US is complicated. The US is currently engaging in a "shift to china" policy where we're stepping down involvement in the middle east and focusing on East Asia.
Our allies in the region are asking for this change and China does not want it. So you see... there will be trouble. But China's policy has been thus far to do what it can get away with and to not do what it cannot get away with.
The problem China is going to run into is that the US is a very complex culture. We are like an onion of personalities and interests. And in different contexts, different layers of our cultural onion are preeminent. Most cultures that try to best us in something get used to the way we act in one context and then get surprised when we act a very different way in what is to us a very different context.
Take for example the attack on US embassies. Osama bin ladin believed that because the US reacted one way to attacks on their embassies that the US would act the same way if he blew up a building in Manhattan. Now from the outside, this seems logical. The US had many attacks against it by terrorists and generally didn't do anything. In one case we fired some cruise missiles at a terrorist camp which could have been abandoned for all we knew. But the attack on the trade center buildings triggered a massive response.
This is typical of American interactions with various powers that try to anticipate our reactions without understanding our culture.
Another example was the attack on Pearl Harbor by the imperial japanese. The imperial japanese had been doing things to US shipping and interests in the pacific for years. We ignored it. The japanese assumed that because we didn't react to those provocations that they could sink our pacific fleet in a surprise attack and the worst that would happen is we'd send them a strongly worded letter. Yamamoto who had gone to college in the US and had a better grasp of US culture knew that the attack would trigger a massive response. He tried to tell his peers this but they didn't believe him. So instead he did his best to make the atta
1st, it isn't that expensive.
The notion that security is expensive is largely a product of hiring people that don't have the training to do it properly. The result is that you have to hire a lot of unproductive people or use a lot of consultants that basically do the job for the your IT staff.
The real cost of security is political and not economic.
An outfit with proper security has the security team in much the same position as a doctor has on a naval ship. That is, within their sphere of expertise, they cannot be overruled... even by the captain of the ship.
What this means is that in matters of security, the CIO must be able to overrule the CEO. And the various IT admins that are responsible for security, must be able to dictate how information flows through the network. If a manager wants to install angry birds on his workstation, then you have to be able to tell him no.
I had one collegue that had a pretty big IT petty cash fund. And he'd use it to amongst other things to buy ipads for senior managers that demanded they be able to conduct personal business company systems. He'd get an ipad, connect it to the isolated wifi network that didn't connect to anything but the internet. And then he'd hand them an ipad that linked to it.
Its a lot cheaper to hand someone in power an ipad than it is to compromise the entire security system so that the fucktard can do social media or personal email on company hardware.
This is not expensive. It requires political power and disapline. That is... you cannot compromise. You explain to the banker, that it makes about as much sense to comply with what he's asking as it would be to give someone an excessive loan that you know they couldn't pay back.
You have to go around and explain it to these people in terms they understand. So they get that your sphere has certain constraints and objectives and it would be as sensible for me to let Joe use his personal email on the workstation as it would be for Joe from marketing to promote the competitor's product in our own paid ad campaign.
Its dumb. You explain that it is dumb. And by preventing people from doing dumb stuff the network is actually very secure.
I can go through a lot of different very simple things that don't cost money but secure the network very tightly.
As to software people not understanding how their software can get compromised, that just means they don't have a resident hacker. In most cases you don't need more than one. It isn't expensive. You just have ONE guy that is paid to fuck with your code.
These people are best if they're not consultants because they have to work with your staff in the long term. Personal relationships are also important. People need to understand "oh, that's right, Jeff will fucking make an ass of me if I submit this code. What did he show me the other day? Oh that's right, if I code it this way it will not be bypass the encryption if he pokes the program with a stick."
It isn't expensive.
It does cost "something" but so does the legal department and the accounting department.
Why does the company spend money on a team of lawyers? Because they're afraid of lawsuits, because they need the legal team to draw up contracts, because the legal team understands how to comply with laws, etc.
A lot of stuff. And it all comes out of the bottom line. Yet companies have these legal teams because they understand that they have to have them. And companies without them get sued, fuck up contracts, and get fined by the government.
The IT security department is useful for similar reasons. Only they're a lot cheaper and benefit the quality of your product a lot more.
A product that cannot be hacked if used properly is very valuable. You will trust it in more extreme situations. Life and death. And if your product is competitive in the life and death market then you can charge a lot more.
Think of medical tech. Is it doing anything more than most consumer grade tech of a similar nature? Not rea
Well they beat us into space with the first satellite because we weren't really trying at the time. We were more focused on things with some actual practical value.
As to them beating us multiple times, once our program got going, we left them in the dust.
As to terrifying us with nuclear weapons. Even a chimp with a shotgun is menacing.
And what did their brief moment profit them?
Imagine what would have happened to Russia if they had adopted a friendly posture to the US instead of an anatongistic one. Look at what China has achieved and they weren't even that friendly to us. They were just willing to hold up their end of contracts.
And in return for that they've profited greatly.
Russia could have been a modern first world country. With wealth and power that would be the envy of the world.
They have enormous territory and huge natural resources. They have a relatively skilled population and a reasonable industrial base. They stand between east asia and europe.
All trade between those powers could flow through Russia.
Instead it goes by container ship bypassing russian territory by sea.
Their natural resources are poorly exploited. Their industrial base has been squandered on military production for obsolete weapons for a war that will never happen.
They were given everything and they pissed it all away because their country is run by idiots and has almost always been run by idiots.
They have the occasional bright spark... the Peter the Great or the Gorbachev... but then they go right back to being morons. And for that they lose everything.
I often think of them as the new Byzantines because they make the same sorts of mistakes. The great Eastern Roman empire had every advantage. And they pissed it all away by fucking over their only people that could NOT fuck over. Their western allies. And for that, Constantinople fell to the Turk. The Eastern empire could have controlled much of the meditaranian and certainly the black sea. They could have been infused with endless hordes of Western armies that would crush their foes under foot.
They pissed it all away and were devoured by Muslim world.
As the song goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Putin is a fool. We forgave the Russians after the end of the Cold war. We wanted to build profitable mutual relationships. The Russians played along until they thought they had leverage, then they betrayed us.
They tried to use their role in the oil supply to leverage political concessions. This is a betrayal. Then they used their position in our shared space operations to get political concessions.
The Russians didn't realize they were being tested. We let them participate in something that didn't really matter to see if they would betray us. They did. Now no one trusts them again.
They talk about a freight line from Alaska, across the Aleutian islands, and into Siberia creating a transcontinental rail network. Comical. No one is trusting them with an investment like that. We know that once we build and depend on it, the Russians will threaten to cut it off if we don't give them something.
Does France or England threaten each other to close the chunnel if they have a political dispute? No, they don't. Because they know that would destroy trust between the countries.
Russia is not that clever. They betrayed Germany with the oil and they betrayed the US with the space program. The comments like "if the americans want to get back into space perhaps they should use a trampoline" showed it was a mistake for us to rely on them or trust them with anything.
And if you can't trust a trade partner, then it limits the sort of trade you can do the least profitable kinds. Things where quality isn't important or where you count on people to hold up their end of contracts.
The Chinese broke with the Russians largely because they realized the Russians were bad allies and could not be relied upon for
No I don't. I include insults in my posts because they're justified. There are some profoundly stupid people on this board. You are personally an excellent example of my point.
But I do include reasons and an argument outside of the insult for why I conclude things.
Contradict me. Try it.
As to linus not calling people idiots etc:
http://www.quora.com/Is-Linus-...
Everyone that knows anything knows about it. Since you don't, you don't know anything.
Kindly fuck off. You're useless.
They've got little more than rusting cold war hand-me-downs that are horribly obsolete and few Potemkin village weapons platforms that look cool but don't actually work.
Half of it is about as scary as the death star from the star wars movie "actually" is... aka not at all because it isn't real. It's a model with some special effects.
I'd worry about most of their shit about as much as I'd worry about dinosaurs eating people in my city.
I already explained that to you... at least twice.
If you're too stupid to understand my very clear comment then that isn't my problem.
At a certain point, talking to you people is a little like trying to explain algebra to dogs.
So here's what I'm going to do...
*hands stupid dog a biscuit*
There you go. Now go sit on your little bed and don't bother me.
Good luck with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You can only pass such a law because the public isn't paying attention and doesn't care.
You fuck with something everyone notices and the politics change remarkably.
Uber's success is based on this political principle. They don't ask for permission from the local city council. They just start providing service. And by the time the government gets around to trying to ban them, people already like the service and banning them would be politically expensive. So Uber operates on a policy of it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Google has also already faced off against EU member nations for similar things. Google's response has been to terminate services in those countries. This creates a political backlash against the politicians and the laws are basically dropped.
So really the issue is who cares more?
Your idiot politicians doing something they don't really care about pushed along by a few marginal lobbying groups or the general public that likes these services?
You can't win. Don't embarrass yourself by trying. You're pissing into the wind.
Bingo, one of you brain dead ACs said that only a 12 year old would have made the comment I made.
Now what is the basis for that comment, your brainless sack of shit?
Cultural convention and personal experience.
You can't base that comment on anything else.
And to that point, I responded that your conventions were little more than cultural taboos. Affectations of your society. Why do I have to care what your culture considers valid behavior? Why does your culture have preeminence over mine?
Linus Trovald has been cited repeatedly by people as being very rude to idiots. He'll cus them out and call them morons. He'll say their code is sloppy shit unworthy of any role in the project. He'll say the people that wrote the code are themselves idiots that due to their intellectual defiency are unworthy of contributing to the product as anything more than makers of sandwiches.
Now... that is my culture. I'm not saying I'm Linus. I'm saying rather that we share a common culture. And in our culture, adults do and will cus out fucktards for being fucktards. It isn't a demonstration of immaturity in our culture. It is rather our responsibility to challenge stupid people in our midst and show that by that challenge they are our inferiors.
So when you say "only a 12 year old would say X" in my culture that isn't true. You're attempting a kind of cultural imperialism. You are implying that your culture has a right to pull rank on my culture and force it to adapt its social norms to yours.
I reject that, bingo. Your culture is full of far too many idiots with far too much undeserved credibility.
My culture has problems but that isn't one of them. Fools are not suffered gladly in my culture. We label them as such and isolate them so they can't harm our societies. If anything, I think my culture is superior to yours. And I would sooner impose my culture on yours than permit you to impose yours on mine.
Indeed. Nor many branchs of the US government.
Apparently the portion of the US government that keeps track of government employees with security clearance didn't have any IT security team until 2013.
Your argument is now that "well people in charge don't agree with you so you must be wrong."
This is an appeal to authority. A common logical fallacy and the fact that you relied on it means you're something of an idiot.
My point rests on the notion that these systems can be secured cheaply at the price of limiting funcionality to actual NEED. So for example, my systems can't go on facebook. They can't connect to your private email. You can't do you your personal banking... and they're basically just not YOUR personal machines. they are the company's or the government's machines. And they do what either organization needs them to do. But nothing else. And by limiting them to only be able to do what they need to do, hacking them is almost impossible.
For example does workstation 1 need to talk to workstation 2 directly? No? Then disallow that so that workstations can only talk to the servers directly... and all communications to workstations occur indirectly with the communication being bounced through the server. Set this up at an appliance/hardware level. Most enterprise routers will let you do this.
Little things like that make infecting machines with worms a lot harder because you have to infect the server to spread a worm from workstation 1 to workstation 2. If the Server will not run any code or script that hasn't been authorized by the admin then spreading a worm is almost impossible right there. Yes, a workstation might get a worm. But it will be isolated on one machine.
And that is a very simple security measure that the user won't even notice but which makes the network a lot more secure.
I do stuff like that... and it means a lot of my users don't like me.
I'm referred to as "Dr No."... because I mostly just tell them no when they ask to do stupid shit. And of course I'm evil and want to take over the world... and I have metal robot hands.
My statement was as self evident as 1+1=2. If you're too dumb to follow along, that isn't my fault.
France will blink.
Bingo, for me to have lied there, I would have had to known it was not true. You already admitted you fucked up and I didn't lie. So why are you now lying by reversing course and saying I lied about something that you know I didn't lie about?
I mean... who do you think you're fooling here?
Not me obviously. No one else is reading this... so... its you and me... and I'm not fooled... so what is the point?
I just quoted you suggesting that something I said wasn't mature and you used as an argument what you considered to be social norms.
How stupid are you? Rhetorical question... very. :D
bingo, you're so transparent... try harder.
Did too. :)
Cite a lie I told, fucktwit.
You say I can't undo my record... but I don't need to. And unlike you, I'm not afraid of my record. You are afraid of your record. And yet you presume threaten me with mine? You're a joke.
I am quite happy to stand on my record. Unlike you, I'm not a coward. ;)
*kiss kiss* shithead. :)
This thread? who cares. You're following me all over the forum. Who cares what thread we're talking about anymore.
It doesn't matter to you. Why should it matter to me? You already admitted in one of these threads that you were in error on the whole lying thing... You know it. I know it... so who's the liar now?
No problem:
"Well, maybe if you're 12. Mature adults do not conduct themselves with such terms when they want to be taken seriously.
Actually, no. Even a 12 year old would only use that term in anger. No mature person would use it any other way."
How do you know what mature adults do or do not do? And what is this about being taken seriously?
What's funny about all this is that you actually believe your line of bullshit. Which means you've never met someone that spoke harshly to you coldly.
See, I don't need to be angry to call someone a fucktard or to say someone is garbage. It isn't a requirement. I do the math. I add up the figures and then cite the conclusion.
(Stupid comment + lack of awareness) * in ability to process the errors when they come due = idiot.
There's no anger there.
Again, anger is an emotion born of FEAR. See someone angry and they're afraid first. Think about it.
No, idiot. Don't respond. Stop and think. Process the question. Actually think about it.
Go through your mind of people that were angry and note that they were all afraid first.
A man with no fear cannot know anger.
And the reality here is that you have no ability to threaten me so I can't know fear from you and so I can't be angry.
QED, fucktwit.
The above is quite obvious to anyone that isn't a child or with a child's grasp of the human mind.
I see people that are angry all the time. And whenever I do... i know they're afraid of something. And that is always an interesting observation. I ask myself "what are they afraid of"...
but you? you can't do anything to me. You're meaningless. And as such I can't fear you. And as I can't fear you, there is no cause for anger. For anger is a way of dealing with fear.
You can't win, little one. You are an insect challenging a man. I play with you on my fingers as you scurry across the surface of my skin. But you are nothing. I flick my wrist and you are gone.
Nope. I didn't lie about anything. I relied upon what the site told me had happened. The next time it does, I'll screen cap the error message for you.
There's no lie.
A lie requires deliberate deception. An error based on putting too much faith in an error message is not a lie by definition unless I knowingly misrepresent my statement. I did no such thing so it was not a lie.
You don't really understand what a "lie" is do you?
See, this is my issue with ACs... you're astoundingly stupid. How can you not know what a lie is and yet be so fucking dumb that you'd accuse someone of doing it?
This is why ACs need to not exist. Then we can know who the morons are and shame you into silence. The alternative is that so many of you idiots are running around sockpuppeting each other that no one knows exactly how many of you there are... at least of the really dumb ones.
I suspect there are fewer of you then it would appear. But you're very active posters.
First, "you"... that implies I did something which I didn't do.
Second, this is continued with you using the word "did" which states that I actually did something which I didn't do.
Third, "exactly" means that something precisely something and you've already admitted that I didn't lie which means I didn't exactly lie.
Fourth, there is that "you" again that suggests I did something.
Fifth, "are" again suggests a state of being but your statement is contradictory with both your own statements and reality.
Sixth, you used that word again "liar" which you already admitted I was not. ... that's the part that I have a problem with... all of it. Every single bit.
Oh so now you want to claim that what is appropriate isn't a matter of culture or consensus?
Then what is your basis for saying my comments were inappropriate? Your argument is going to be "well people don't do that"... to which I pointed out that people actually do that all the time. They just don't do it at the preschool world you live in.
Talk to anyone outside of your sad, sterile, PC bubble and you'll find that amongst people that actually accomplish things... morons get called morons.
And the reason for that is that morons fuck things up. They really fuck up everything they have any control over. And so anyone that wants to accomplish something can't have morons involved in any aspect of the decision making process. It destroys the system.
As to whether I am comparable to Issac newton, I said no such thing, small minded, fucktard. I instead was pointing out that people of accomplishment and intelligence are often harsh with their inferiors.
That is my point. You'd have realized that if you weren't so fucking inferior.
There's no goal post being moved. That is what it means to lie and what it means to tell the truth.
You're the one that is goal post moving. Your claim that I lied was so stupid that even you backed off it and rather than admit you went too far you're now trying to cover your mistake with abuse.
You're pitiful.
And that's another post for me. I can't wait until the stupid thing flags me. Then I shall screen cap it and win.
Keep going. :D
Okay so you admit I wasn't a lair.
k thanks.
I win again, twit.
You so fucking stupid :D Its amazing.