>You turned it into hyperbole by simplifying it into black and white, throwing out all nuance and complexity.
Now that would be a good example of "hyperbole". I predicted that someone else would throw out all nuance and complexity, because that happens quite frequently in the mainstream dialog on this issue as exampled by the press. If you'd like an explicit acknowledgement from me that personal preferences can be influenced by social messaging, then you have it.
It isn't hyperbole! It's the default explanation supplied in virtually every news story about why most girls don't become interested in math and science at a young age, or why young women don't seek college degrees or careers in science, engineering, and technology.
>Especially in Asia where students and women actually really want to work in IT and are good at it.
Thank you for acknowledging that much of the problem isn't discrimination, but peoples' choices. It has always troubled me to hear people talk about how important it is to secure womens' rights, then in the next breath talk about all the ways society needs to impose different thinking on women and girls in order to make them do what we think is best for them. The reality is that there are not very many qualified female IT workers in the US because American women generally do not want to work in IT.
Now someone will bring up social messaging and cultural attitudes towards gender roles, and blame society for the way most American women feel. Because that is totally respectful of women and not patronizing towards them at all.
The most bothersome statement to me is right here:
>consumer-grade antivirus products
Look, we all know that more advanced solutions are out there, antivirus techniques that rely on advanced chipset features and even custom hardware modules to protect systems. Yet we're still stuck using the same old known-signature-scanning, high-level-OS-API-using *shit* that wasn't up to the job a decade ago. Why? Are the billions of dollars a year in claimed corporate losses to computer intrusions insufficient profit motive for someone to bring something better to market? Are we really expected to believe that billion dollar companies like Intel, Microsoft, Google, and Apple simply aren't up to the technical challenge, let alone government agencies like the NSA whose job it is supposed to be to protect the security of America's communications? I guess they're too busy violating that security to care, these days.
The pace of progress on the consumer internet used to be blinding. Now, with the network mostly taken over by large corporations and the governments they are symbiotic with, and the capture of the knowledge and creative spheres by government dollars and NDAs, the internet is becoming just as dysfunctional as the lumbering dinosaurs all-too-willing to ruin anything and hurt anyone necessary to ensure their continued place at the head of the table.
Right down to Microsoft's "mistake" in their Terminal Server certificate assignment process, that "accidentally" allowed those certificates to be used to sign code.
>Draw a line and describe in black and white what duplicating functionality means.
That would just paint them into a corner, providing loopholes for lazy or bad developers to exploit. It's good strategy to preserve some fuzzy discretion about which applications to accept or reject.
Forbidding duplicate functionality probably has less to do with preventing the emergence of competing Alarm Clock apps and more to do with shooing away coders who try to sideline core features of the OS. The walled garden and all it's trappings really seem like an extension of the philosophy Apple's more or less always taken towards developers: make it harder on them in order to make it easier on end users. If your app is rejected, you'll know why. The guidelines are much less stringent on other platforms, but as a result of that applications on those platforms are not nearly as consistent, reliable, or usable out of the box by grandma as they are on either a Mac or an iOS device.
I don't know the/. team or Mr. Haselton personally. I remember Bennett's name and work on Peacefire and other projects way back in the 90s, though. He's of course also been a frequent contributor here with timely electronic civil liberties news. The Wiki article about him has merit for me, but can't speak for anyone else.
Bless the Maker and His water^H^H^H^H^H photons. Bless the coming and going of Him. May His passage cleanse the world. May He keep the world for His people.
> Rather than going through a bloody and violent war for independence, we just kinda sat around for a while.
Would things have turned out the same for Canada had the American Revolution not occurred? Without the American Revolution, would the French Revolution have happened at all, or have had the same character, and even if it did would it have been sufficient on it's own to tilt so much of the world toward representative forms of government? Would colonialism be more accepted and commonplace than we find it today? What would become of the notion of concepts like equality in a world where no one had fought for them?
The innovative threat here is the use of concealment to greatly complicate the targeting and tracking of these battlefield assets before they're employed. Cruise-type missiles aren't the most dangerous threat faced by carrier battle groups, but they're not an insignificant one either. Otherwise, we wouldn't be putting so much effort into defending against them.
So much is dependent on the specific details of the computing environment. How many servers per day can your administrators give the requisite level of attention, each and every day?
Clusters are easier to administer than stand-alone servers. Production servers can be easier to administer if you enjoy a proper development environment and change management processes, or more difficult than the development environment if you lack them. What sort of security risk profile must admins contend with? Are there other administrators? How well are your efforts coordinated? Are end users mucking about with the system? Do any require administrative access? How finicky are the applications being served? How robust and reliable is your organization's non-systems infrastructure? What's the hardware budget? The tolerance for process failures? What are the organization's expectations? How competent and responsive is the management? How homogenous is the infrastructure with respect to hardware, operating systems, and applications?
Ever watch Star Trek? Define a "level 4" scan process for your servers with a focus on manually verifying it's complete functionality and the basic sort of checks and audits that can be performed with the system still operational, log review and process audits and such. How much time per server will it take an admin to complete each task? If an admin can't get this done for all of her servers in one day and still have time for lunch, her hands are too full.
>This can be a very dangerous weapon if 'the enemy' has mirrors all over their targets that reflect this laser.
Only if they can manage to build mirrors all over the target capable focusing the energy of the weapon back onto the source or another distant target without significant losses. The mirrors would also need to provide total coverage if intended to protect an aerodynamic object, and react nearly at light speed and then hide themselves unless it's acceptable to have a radar cross section the size of the spruce goose.
>Secondly, How do you avoid innocent/friendly fire to those in the line of sight of the laser?
Still wrong, I think. The Terminator is more like a modern day Frankenstein, with the technology really just being the almost sympathetic vehicle. It's really about what uses the tool is put to in human hands rather than the nature of the tool itself. In Frankenstein it centered on the hubris of one man, in Terminator that of many men or perhaps all mankind: "there's no fate but what we make", "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves".
The relentless, unfeeling killing machine that is the Terminator is a personification of the fear of that nature, not technology.
That the antagonists in horror movies are often allegorical representations of the creators' fears is hardly a shocking observation.
That zombies as a metaphor represent fear of technology seems wrong. Technology has largely replaced the supernatural as the favored MacGuffin in realistic fiction, horror included, simply because it's a more believable way to accomplish incredible things. Likewise, when our story-time villains mostly used magic, exploring our fears about magic was rarely the point of the story. Dracula was not a metaphor for the dangers of magical progress but instead for aspects of the darker side of human nature.
It's those aspects... that darker side of human nature, that our villains and foils most effectively and most often represent.
It's carbon dioxide that you'd be exhaling, converted from fat and excreted by bacteria. And, since the bacteria would be living in your stomach rather than your lungs, it wouldn't be "exhaling" quite so much as as "belching and farting".
So no. It would actually be second-hand flatus that you'd have to be concerned with.
You can give them a target, but only if they already kinda want to attack that target.
Unless you can figure out what makes them want to attack a target, and then give them that in a believable way. That's what opposition research is all about.
"Internet vigilantes", the kinds who do care about issues like cults and animal abuse, seem little more than pawns for the sociopathic trolls who enjoy nothing more than exerting power over their peers, particularly in ways that elevate their in-group status and justify their innate desire to inflict suffering on those peers.
Slashdot Mirror
>You turned it into hyperbole by simplifying it into black and white, throwing out all nuance and complexity.
Now that would be a good example of "hyperbole". I predicted that someone else would throw out all nuance and complexity, because that happens quite frequently in the mainstream dialog on this issue as exampled by the press. If you'd like an explicit acknowledgement from me that personal preferences can be influenced by social messaging, then you have it.
It isn't hyperbole! It's the default explanation supplied in virtually every news story about why most girls don't become interested in math and science at a young age, or why young women don't seek college degrees or careers in science, engineering, and technology.
>Especially in Asia where students and women actually really want to work in IT and are good at it.
Thank you for acknowledging that much of the problem isn't discrimination, but peoples' choices. It has always troubled me to hear people talk about how important it is to secure womens' rights, then in the next breath talk about all the ways society needs to impose different thinking on women and girls in order to make them do what we think is best for them. The reality is that there are not very many qualified female IT workers in the US because American women generally do not want to work in IT.
Now someone will bring up social messaging and cultural attitudes towards gender roles, and blame society for the way most American women feel. Because that is totally respectful of women and not patronizing towards them at all.
The most bothersome statement to me is right here:
>consumer-grade antivirus products
Look, we all know that more advanced solutions are out there, antivirus techniques that rely on advanced chipset features and even custom hardware modules to protect systems. Yet we're still stuck using the same old known-signature-scanning, high-level-OS-API-using *shit* that wasn't up to the job a decade ago. Why? Are the billions of dollars a year in claimed corporate losses to computer intrusions insufficient profit motive for someone to bring something better to market? Are we really expected to believe that billion dollar companies like Intel, Microsoft, Google, and Apple simply aren't up to the technical challenge, let alone government agencies like the NSA whose job it is supposed to be to protect the security of America's communications? I guess they're too busy violating that security to care, these days.
The pace of progress on the consumer internet used to be blinding. Now, with the network mostly taken over by large corporations and the governments they are symbiotic with, and the capture of the knowledge and creative spheres by government dollars and NDAs, the internet is becoming just as dysfunctional as the lumbering dinosaurs all-too-willing to ruin anything and hurt anyone necessary to ensure their continued place at the head of the table.
>Not the OS companies, the AV companies
Not an either/or. All these big companies know who butters their bread, and jump at the chance to work with "007" anyway.
Right down to Microsoft's "mistake" in their Terminal Server certificate assignment process, that "accidentally" allowed those certificates to be used to sign code.
>Draw a line and describe in black and white what duplicating functionality means.
That would just paint them into a corner, providing loopholes for lazy or bad developers to exploit. It's good strategy to preserve some fuzzy discretion about which applications to accept or reject.
Forbidding duplicate functionality probably has less to do with preventing the emergence of competing Alarm Clock apps and more to do with shooing away coders who try to sideline core features of the OS. The walled garden and all it's trappings really seem like an extension of the philosophy Apple's more or less always taken towards developers: make it harder on them in order to make it easier on end users. If your app is rejected, you'll know why. The guidelines are much less stringent on other platforms, but as a result of that applications on those platforms are not nearly as consistent, reliable, or usable out of the box by grandma as they are on either a Mac or an iOS device.
I don't know the /. team or Mr. Haselton personally. I remember Bennett's name and work on Peacefire and other projects way back in the 90s, though. He's of course also been a frequent contributor here with timely electronic civil liberties news. The Wiki article about him has merit for me, but can't speak for anyone else.
J. Edgar Hoover approves of your comment.
Bless the Maker and His water^H^H^H^H^H photons.
Bless the coming and going of Him.
May His passage cleanse the world.
May He keep the world for His people.
> Rather than going through a bloody and violent war for independence, we just kinda sat around for a while.
Would things have turned out the same for Canada had the American Revolution not occurred? Without the American Revolution, would the French Revolution have happened at all, or have had the same character, and even if it did would it have been sufficient on it's own to tilt so much of the world toward representative forms of government? Would colonialism be more accepted and commonplace than we find it today? What would become of the notion of concepts like equality in a world where no one had fought for them?
The innovative threat here is the use of concealment to greatly complicate the targeting and tracking of these battlefield assets before they're employed. Cruise-type missiles aren't the most dangerous threat faced by carrier battle groups, but they're not an insignificant one either. Otherwise, we wouldn't be putting so much effort into defending against them.
So much is dependent on the specific details of the computing environment. How many servers per day can your administrators give the requisite level of attention, each and every day?
Clusters are easier to administer than stand-alone servers. Production servers can be easier to administer if you enjoy a proper development environment and change management processes, or more difficult than the development environment if you lack them. What sort of security risk profile must admins contend with? Are there other administrators? How well are your efforts coordinated? Are end users mucking about with the system? Do any require administrative access? How finicky are the applications being served? How robust and reliable is your organization's non-systems infrastructure? What's the hardware budget? The tolerance for process failures? What are the organization's expectations? How competent and responsive is the management? How homogenous is the infrastructure with respect to hardware, operating systems, and applications?
Ever watch Star Trek? Define a "level 4" scan process for your servers with a focus on manually verifying it's complete functionality and the basic sort of checks and audits that can be performed with the system still operational, log review and process audits and such. How much time per server will it take an admin to complete each task? If an admin can't get this done for all of her servers in one day and still have time for lunch, her hands are too full.
>This can be a very dangerous weapon if 'the enemy' has mirrors all over their targets that reflect this laser.
Only if they can manage to build mirrors all over the target capable focusing the energy of the weapon back onto the source or another distant target without significant losses. The mirrors would also need to provide total coverage if intended to protect an aerodynamic object, and react nearly at light speed and then hide themselves unless it's acceptable to have a radar cross section the size of the spruce goose.
>Secondly, How do you avoid innocent/friendly fire to those in the line of sight of the laser?
Uhh, I dunno... mirrors?
Good news: probably sooner than you think
Bad news: because civilians rather than soldiers will increasingly be the targets in warfare
Still wrong, I think. The Terminator is more like a modern day Frankenstein, with the technology really just being the almost sympathetic vehicle. It's really about what uses the tool is put to in human hands rather than the nature of the tool itself. In Frankenstein it centered on the hubris of one man, in Terminator that of many men or perhaps all mankind: "there's no fate but what we make", "it's in your nature to destroy yourselves".
The relentless, unfeeling killing machine that is the Terminator is a personification of the fear of that nature, not technology.
That the antagonists in horror movies are often allegorical representations of the creators' fears is hardly a shocking observation.
That zombies as a metaphor represent fear of technology seems wrong. Technology has largely replaced the supernatural as the favored MacGuffin in realistic fiction, horror included, simply because it's a more believable way to accomplish incredible things. Likewise, when our story-time villains mostly used magic, exploring our fears about magic was rarely the point of the story. Dracula was not a metaphor for the dangers of magical progress but instead for aspects of the darker side of human nature.
It's those aspects... that darker side of human nature, that our villains and foils most effectively and most often represent.
It's carbon dioxide that you'd be exhaling, converted from fat and excreted by bacteria. And, since the bacteria would be living in your stomach rather than your lungs, it wouldn't be "exhaling" quite so much as as "belching and farting".
So no. It would actually be second-hand flatus that you'd have to be concerned with.
PR firms disagree
You can give them a target, but only if they already kinda want to attack that target.
Unless you can figure out what makes them want to attack a target, and then give them that in a believable way. That's what opposition research is all about.
Wrong, the United States Supreme Court can review and declare a law unconstitutional.
Only in connection with a court case brought by an entitled petitioner.
Do you really think over 9000 Internet nerds would have taken it to the streets if it wasn't about something that deserved it?
The social engineering is usually the easiest part of any hack.
"Internet vigilantes", the kinds who do care about issues like cults and animal abuse, seem little more than pawns for the sociopathic trolls who enjoy nothing more than exerting power over their peers, particularly in ways that elevate their in-group status and justify their innate desire to inflict suffering on those peers.
"Cult like mentality" is an apt description.
Don't mind me... on my way to achievement whoring.
Dear Congressman Langevin,
Need a hand? Call me!