The suspect DNA is added to water containing tiny gold nanoparticles, which turn the water pink... if DNA from healthy cells is added, the DNA binds to the particles differently, and turns the water blue
What if the lab assistant is color blind? And isn't water blue already?
So to recap, your excuse for not having proper local basic security hardware audits is.
When did that go away? You still need to do that anyway.
to put that in the cloud?
Um - I realize being an AC you may not quite understand this, but "the cloud" is just servers. Anything I was talking about is servers, so it's already on "the cloud" regardless of what I am suggesting - I'm merely talking about enabling access to servers (which again were always there being servers) outside the firewall, rather than presuming people on the VPN should get in more easily.
There was one company I was at that took it a bit too far the other way though - they actually had some servers I could *only* access when not on the company VPN! Now that was interesting, but I think too far.
I realize I probably didn't make that quite clear enough for the syrupy mind of an AC - so I will explain...
I'm talking about cases where whole remote offices are set up on a VPN. Offer easier to get into satellite offices than main HQ, and not nearly as carefully monitored. Then you have access to the internal network if you leave something attached to any one of a number of hardwired ports probably laying about, near a plug...
The point is, you can't trust something just because it is on the LAN.
I agree but how long does that ever really hold in any large company?
Over time a LOT of stuff will grow in any company to lazily trust the LAN, or at least they sure will not think about attacks from that vector nearly as hard as the firewall guys.
If you have to make those things open to outside use the whole chain gets a lot more thought applied as to access security. Otherwise server after server gets thrown up with minimal access protection because it is already "protected" by the company firewall.
You can't just wave your hands and say you need to understand you shouldn't trust something just because it's within the LAN, because that ignores how people behave in reality over time. No security team at any company has enough power or funds or people to actually enforce that idea.
I remember the switch from Power PC's to Intel when Apple did it for Mac's. It was a mess for some time
I lived through that switch (in that I had both Motorola and Intel Macs over the years), it didn't seem like much of a mess at all, at least compared to what it could have been. I thought it worked pretty well except for maybe a handful of companies that couldn't make the transition - but Apple really did most everything it could to make the switch go much better than I would have thought... In fact probably OS9 to OSX was more painful I would say.
Honestly they are in even better shape now since they have had so long with Xcode supporting both Arm and x86 architectures and fat binaries (and even bitcode deployment for later compilation!) for some time. For most modern Mac developers supporting ARM probably would not take a ton of work.
I have to admit some part of me wishes Apple would switch to AMD for a while, but I can see how they feel they would really be under their own control if they go all in on ARM.
I totally understand why a company would want to put all remote offices into a private company VPN, but it sure seems like it opens them up to physical attacks like this in a way they would not be otherwise... maybe companies should work harder to make everything a worker needs accessible via the internet at large and have a more protected domain that is harder to attack - physical as well as network-wise.
That would help improve the life of remote workers also, as a happy byproduct.
Why? You need to explain why something you categorically dismiss as being against law, is...
It's perfectly legal to look up company ownership records, and follow a path back to a root entity.
There are probably some masking techniques they could not get around, but most of the groups making these ads are not that clever. Even if you are stopped tracing back at some point you could probably find an interesting root for a lot of ads and groups.
What happens when they hide behind 10 LLCs to obscure who's really paying for it? If you're a journalist with lots of free time maybe you can track that down
What I'm saying is that Facebook has the kind of money to track down those ten LLC's, and if they are serious about really having fair political ads, that is what they should be doing. It would take minuscule resources to dig all this up if you just had a small team doing it for every political ad buyer.
Also, the point of a lot of these adverts is to influence the easily influenced.
I still firmly believe there is no such person, especially not on Facebook. From friends and older family both far left and far right, not a single one of them is going to be influenced by anything MAYBE for some issues right on the margin. But nothing that is talked about on Facebook or covered by these ads.
For starters I think foreign governments should have to disclose that in the adverts.
Yeah that would be nice but obviously they will not, but Facebook of all people is probably in the best position to find that out., and reveal if that is the case.
Rather than blocking ads from ideologies you disagree with, simply illuminating who is paying for ads would help a lot - what would be great is if they not only would say who is paying for a particular ad, but follow the chain of company ownership backwards and report the string of owners than let to the funding for that ad... Facebook has the kind of size and money it would take to accomplish that.
Now THAT would be some transparency! And to my mind bring some degree of redemption to Facebook.
I never had a desire to use Edge, but do use Chrome from time to time as a secondary browser, and would love to have an option not from Google. I'll probably switch to using Edge for secondary browsing unless I encounter some major issue.
For example, a taxi hail site or app would actually work fine anonymously, same as calling a taxi service. Payment would be negotiated between the driver and rider, with the driver paying the app authors for referrals.
I admire the philosophy you are putting forth, but I don't think that is a good example of how to apply it.
Ride sharing is an example where both sides really need to be sure of who the other is to have the whole thing be safe. If both drivers and riders are anonymous, you are really asking for criminals to spend an evening robbing as many people as they can by pretending to be a real driver, and taking them out somewhere to be mugged or raped. In fact, you had mentioned how this was similar to a taxi service - that very issue is a big problem with taxi services in smaller countries.
Similarly the same is true of riders, there's no way I would drive for a service where the service I am working for does not at least have identities of riders to the level of payment info, along with ratings from other drivers knowing the potential riders are not going to trash or steal my car. Again, taxi drivers get robbed quite often from random fares.
Not to mention if you are always having to negotiate payment info with each rider before you arrive, I (as a driver) have lost any incentive to actually go out to any place even slightly far away because it could be a compete waste of time if they are not willing to pay enough. Even taxi services have fixed rates for rides and sometimes you get charged more on top.
Maybe a variant where a central company verified identity of riders and driver but names were otherwise kept anonymous, and the rider has the ability to offer up an escrowed amount of money for a trip they wanted to take... I could see that being pretty interesting. The rider still needs enough info to know where the driver is and what kind of car they can expect though.
I had missed the whole new "Fluent" design thing from Build (I normally try to pay attention to what they talk about but was too busy this year).
So I dug down a bit and finally found the Fluent design guidelines. There are some interesting things going on there, like use of light and focus in different ways depending on screen distance (viewing something on a TV screen vs. on a screen right in front of you), probably worth going over to incorporate good ideas into your own UI work...
...making 1000 tiny connections and all shifting the DOM around. Maybe I sound like an old man trying to return soup at a deli,...
Just had to say that transition really made me laugh.:-)
I totally agree with you on mobile browsing being especially sucky, I swear they load mobile browsers down with even more ads than desktop (and it's also subject to stupid ad hacking where ads on a website can trigger an immediate load of some other entirety different site).
If you are the same person I accept your apology, I always figured the threats were not really serious (I've got a lot of death threats over the years for more trivial things). I appreciate your reevaluation, good luck.
Also, I'm not sure if the fobs have batteries, or are powered with received EM from the car.
My fob does have a battery, and most would for powering the broadcast signals that are used by the remote unlock buttons.
However after some thought, it seems like even with the battery disconnected the actual RFID chip would probably still broadcast, after all it is just a latent thing... so it's not that easy to rug up a switch. I guess a kind of switch could be as simple as a sliding RFID blocker over the body of the fob that you could fold away somehow.
Then you deserve to have your radio signals amplified and replayed.
Sure do! But it's super unlikely I figure. I'll gladly trade a lifetime of convenience for the slim chance it will be used to take the car some day - which insurance would just pay for another of anyway...
Also my car is garaged which adds an admittedly thin layer of extra security around it when not in use.
Honestly rather than a switch which would be annoying all the time, a simple RF blocking bag to drop the key into at home seems like a much more practical way to go if you have to leave your car on the street and want someplace near the door to leave the key.
Pai noted in a court filing that most of the comments were in favor of net neutrality
Most of you here on Slashdot are supporting a side Russia is strongly supporting. Doesn't that tell you anything about how wrong it is to support Net Neutrality as the FCC had it?
Again I am all in favor of real net neutrality, of the concepts behind it - but you have all been lied to if you think the 30 page monstrosity the FCC originally had was anything like what you want. We are all better off being rid of it, being rid of something that Russia fully backed because they knew how it would screw up our internet in the long run.
As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater
There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.
From this link: A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water.
That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.
From the ACTUAL ARTICLE linked to in the summary, which you probably should have read before you scoured the internet for other random Falcon9 links:
"Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."
Slashdot Mirror
A physician I work with told me: "Afib is more common in men than in women, therefore we know women cause afib!"
Lesbians exists, therefore no.
Unless they also have higher rates? Hmm!
Yes, SuperKendall. Water is blue.
Actuaklly water is not blue, it only appears blue because of its absorption characteristics with respect to different wavelengths of light.
The suspect DNA is added to water containing tiny gold nanoparticles, which turn the water pink... if DNA from healthy cells is added, the DNA binds to the particles differently, and turns the water blue
What if the lab assistant is color blind? And isn't water blue already?
So to recap, your excuse for not having proper local basic security hardware audits is.
When did that go away? You still need to do that anyway.
to put that in the cloud?
Um - I realize being an AC you may not quite understand this, but "the cloud" is just servers. Anything I was talking about is servers, so it's already on "the cloud" regardless of what I am suggesting - I'm merely talking about enabling access to servers (which again were always there being servers) outside the firewall, rather than presuming people on the VPN should get in more easily.
There was one company I was at that took it a bit too far the other way though - they actually had some servers I could *only* access when not on the company VPN! Now that was interesting, but I think too far.
I realize I probably didn't make that quite clear enough for the syrupy mind of an AC - so I will explain...
I'm talking about cases where whole remote offices are set up on a VPN. Offer easier to get into satellite offices than main HQ, and not nearly as carefully monitored. Then you have access to the internal network if you leave something attached to any one of a number of hardwired ports probably laying about, near a plug...
The point is, you can't trust something just because it is on the LAN.
I agree but how long does that ever really hold in any large company?
Over time a LOT of stuff will grow in any company to lazily trust the LAN, or at least they sure will not think about attacks from that vector nearly as hard as the firewall guys.
If you have to make those things open to outside use the whole chain gets a lot more thought applied as to access security. Otherwise server after server gets thrown up with minimal access protection because it is already "protected" by the company firewall.
You can't just wave your hands and say you need to understand you shouldn't trust something just because it's within the LAN, because that ignores how people behave in reality over time. No security team at any company has enough power or funds or people to actually enforce that idea.
Frog 2 (later): Ok it's pretty hot now, what do we do?
Frog: What we need to do is regulate the water temperature!
Frog: *passes regulation*
Water: *ignores regulation, being water*
Frog 1& 2: *die horribly*
I remember the switch from Power PC's to Intel when Apple did it for Mac's. It was a mess for some time
I lived through that switch (in that I had both Motorola and Intel Macs over the years), it didn't seem like much of a mess at all, at least compared to what it could have been. I thought it worked pretty well except for maybe a handful of companies that couldn't make the transition - but Apple really did most everything it could to make the switch go much better than I would have thought... In fact probably OS9 to OSX was more painful I would say.
Honestly they are in even better shape now since they have had so long with Xcode supporting both Arm and x86 architectures and fat binaries (and even bitcode deployment for later compilation!) for some time. For most modern Mac developers supporting ARM probably would not take a ton of work.
I have to admit some part of me wishes Apple would switch to AMD for a while, but I can see how they feel they would really be under their own control if they go all in on ARM.
I totally understand why a company would want to put all remote offices into a private company VPN, but it sure seems like it opens them up to physical attacks like this in a way they would not be otherwise... maybe companies should work harder to make everything a worker needs accessible via the internet at large and have a more protected domain that is harder to attack - physical as well as network-wise.
That would help improve the life of remote workers also, as a happy byproduct.
Absolutely not doable with current US law
Why? You need to explain why something you categorically dismiss as being against law, is...
It's perfectly legal to look up company ownership records, and follow a path back to a root entity.
There are probably some masking techniques they could not get around, but most of the groups making these ads are not that clever. Even if you are stopped tracing back at some point you could probably find an interesting root for a lot of ads and groups.
What happens when they hide behind 10 LLCs to obscure who's really paying for it? If you're a journalist with lots of free time maybe you can track that down
What I'm saying is that Facebook has the kind of money to track down those ten LLC's, and if they are serious about really having fair political ads, that is what they should be doing. It would take minuscule resources to dig all this up if you just had a small team doing it for every political ad buyer.
Also, the point of a lot of these adverts is to influence the easily influenced.
I still firmly believe there is no such person, especially not on Facebook. From friends and older family both far left and far right, not a single one of them is going to be influenced by anything MAYBE for some issues right on the margin. But nothing that is talked about on Facebook or covered by these ads.
For starters I think foreign governments should have to disclose that in the adverts.
Yeah that would be nice but obviously they will not, but Facebook of all people is probably in the best position to find that out., and reveal if that is the case.
Rather than blocking ads from ideologies you disagree with, simply illuminating who is paying for ads would help a lot - what would be great is if they not only would say who is paying for a particular ad, but follow the chain of company ownership backwards and report the string of owners than let to the funding for that ad... Facebook has the kind of size and money it would take to accomplish that.
Now THAT would be some transparency! And to my mind bring some degree of redemption to Facebook.
I never had a desire to use Edge, but do use Chrome from time to time as a secondary browser, and would love to have an option not from Google. I'll probably switch to using Edge for secondary browsing unless I encounter some major issue.
For example, a taxi hail site or app would actually work fine anonymously, same as calling a taxi service. Payment would be negotiated between the driver and rider, with the driver paying the app authors for referrals.
I admire the philosophy you are putting forth, but I don't think that is a good example of how to apply it.
Ride sharing is an example where both sides really need to be sure of who the other is to have the whole thing be safe. If both drivers and riders are anonymous, you are really asking for criminals to spend an evening robbing as many people as they can by pretending to be a real driver, and taking them out somewhere to be mugged or raped. In fact, you had mentioned how this was similar to a taxi service - that very issue is a big problem with taxi services in smaller countries.
Similarly the same is true of riders, there's no way I would drive for a service where the service I am working for does not at least have identities of riders to the level of payment info, along with ratings from other drivers knowing the potential riders are not going to trash or steal my car. Again, taxi drivers get robbed quite often from random fares.
Not to mention if you are always having to negotiate payment info with each rider before you arrive, I (as a driver) have lost any incentive to actually go out to any place even slightly far away because it could be a compete waste of time if they are not willing to pay enough. Even taxi services have fixed rates for rides and sometimes you get charged more on top.
Maybe a variant where a central company verified identity of riders and driver but names were otherwise kept anonymous, and the rider has the ability to offer up an escrowed amount of money for a trip they wanted to take... I could see that being pretty interesting. The rider still needs enough info to know where the driver is and what kind of car they can expect though.
Totally agree with that as well, and a great example of another horror that is unique to mobile browsing.
I had missed the whole new "Fluent" design thing from Build (I normally try to pay attention to what they talk about but was too busy this year).
So I dug down a bit and finally found the Fluent design guidelines. There are some interesting things going on there, like use of light and focus in different ways depending on screen distance (viewing something on a TV screen vs. on a screen right in front of you), probably worth going over to incorporate good ideas into your own UI work...
...making 1000 tiny connections and all shifting the DOM around. Maybe I sound like an old man trying to return soup at a deli,...
Just had to say that transition really made me laugh. :-)
I totally agree with you on mobile browsing being especially sucky, I swear they load mobile browsers down with even more ads than desktop (and it's also subject to stupid ad hacking where ads on a website can trigger an immediate load of some other entirety different site).
If you are the same person I accept your apology, I always figured the threats were not really serious (I've got a lot of death threats over the years for more trivial things). I appreciate your reevaluation, good luck.
I'll let you know when he stops antagonizing Russia.
If Russia ever did even support Trump, he played them for fools.
The real thing to look at is Trump/China, but y'all are too stupid to even look. Sad.
Also, I'm not sure if the fobs have batteries, or are powered with received EM from the car.
My fob does have a battery, and most would for powering the broadcast signals that are used by the remote unlock buttons.
However after some thought, it seems like even with the battery disconnected the actual RFID chip would probably still broadcast, after all it is just a latent thing... so it's not that easy to rug up a switch. I guess a kind of switch could be as simple as a sliding RFID blocker over the body of the fob that you could fold away somehow.
Then you deserve to have your radio signals amplified and replayed.
Sure do! But it's super unlikely I figure. I'll gladly trade a lifetime of convenience for the slim chance it will be used to take the car some day - which insurance would just pay for another of anyway...
Also my car is garaged which adds an admittedly thin layer of extra security around it when not in use.
Honestly rather than a switch which would be annoying all the time, a simple RF blocking bag to drop the key into at home seems like a much more practical way to go if you have to leave your car on the street and want someplace near the door to leave the key.
Pai noted in a court filing that most of the comments were in favor of net neutrality
Most of you here on Slashdot are supporting a side Russia is strongly supporting. Doesn't that tell you anything about how wrong it is to support Net Neutrality as the FCC had it?
Again I am all in favor of real net neutrality, of the concepts behind it - but you have all been lied to if you think the 30 page monstrosity the FCC originally had was anything like what you want. We are all better off being rid of it, being rid of something that Russia fully backed because they knew how it would screw up our internet in the long run.
Again, SMART people care
Counterpoint: I don't care, you do, therefore no.
I'll let you have the last word because idiots do like to prattle on instead of letting a perfect point of clarity sit for all to understand.
As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater
There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.
From this link: A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water.
That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.
From the ACTUAL ARTICLE linked to in the summary, which you probably should have read before you scoured the internet for other random Falcon9 links:
"Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."
...to say Au Revoir to Allo.