My thoughts exactly.. Until you get in to extremely long wavelengths and really high power levels, 6,000' of salt water makes a really good RF blocker.
Perhaps they mean some kind of sonar link or that Boatface has to surface to uplink stuff?
I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....
Actually he HAS been doing things since November 8th that may have affected this in a positive way. Sometimes just talking about doing something from the bully pulpit the president (and president elect) has can have positive (or negative) affects on the mind set of the people. Just the prospect of new/better policies can have a positive affect even before they can be enacted.
Case in point: Jimmy Carter and his "malaise speech" which was largely blamed for making the 70's seem worse than it was and depressing the country (not that his policies didn't hurt us too.) But it's clear that the president (and president elect) have quite a bit of power in this regard...
I'll leave it to others to argue if what Trump has said helped or hurt, but it's clear that the markets have been on an upward slope since he got elected.
So... what's easier to guess "password" or "Denver17!" ? I know what I'm going to bet gets broken first..
Both are in the "basically worthless" category.
the first one is straight out of a word list.
The second follows one of the most common patterns: "Llllll##?".
So, isn't dictionary checking a common password rule and didn't you just make an argument FOR using it? It would have eliminated BOTH of these worthless passwords right?
The original question was posed as a Yes or No answer. The real answer is a lot more complex than yes or no which is why I say It depends.
As you point out, password complexity rules don't guarantee your users accounts are secure, but NOT using them sure lets your users ignore any pretense at security if they so choose. And your point that it is more about the culture and enforcement of the rules that really is the proper question to be addressing. Things like not sharing accounts, controlling physical access, forcing regular password changes and other such things not directly related to password complexity must all be in place for a comprehensive security plan to work as it should.
Ok.. It depends.... Password rules, like anything, when used within reason CAN increase security.
There has been some research which arrive at the conclusion that yes, indeed, password rules are actually bullshit for security.
What study? Where I agree, aggressive use of password rules doesn't always help, just because they rule out a subset of secure passwords doesn't mean they are totally BS. The argument that password rules always lead to secure passwords is also false. But OBVIOUSLY password rules force the user to avoid the common pitfalls in password selection and will more likely cause your users to have passwords that are not easily cracked.
So... what's easier to guess "password" or "Denver17!" ? I know what I'm going to bet gets broken first..
Really, security is playing the odds anyway. You want to stack the deck in your favor where you can, so if that means forcing your users to follow some rules in password selections gets you 50% more secure passwords.... Do it.. In this case, I'm not inclined to believe password complexity rules are just bad, any more than I think they are a 100% solution. So, my answer stands.. It depends...
You are wrong. The correct answer is NO.... Well maybe that's not the right answer either...
Ok.. It depends.... Password rules, like anything, when used within reason CAN increase security. The question is what constitutes "within reason". Keeping folks from choosing common an easily guessed passwords on a system you need to be somewhat secure is a good thing... Making passwords so complex users need to write them down is not a good thing. So it depends. Depends on the security needs of the system and the exact password rules being used.
Why? Do you think that situation applies in this case? I don't. We are talking about an island with 65,000 people and tourists on it year round. A couple of barrels of diesel wouldn't keep the generators running very long with the kind of demand I'm sure they have..
Likely diesel is handled the same was as gasoline and pumped ashore. I'm not sure they have an underwater pipeline or if it comes from ships. Either way, I'm sure it's a LOT more expensive than the already exurbanite prices on the main island.
I think only a fool doesn't meter out raises that match inflation at a minimum... Unless you are looking to reduce your labor force through attrition.
Further, companies that don't dish out more than average salaries for their best employees, are NOT watching their bottom line in the long term but are making the often repeated mistake I call "Manage to quarter". This is where the share price at the end of THIS quarter is all that matters, nobody is thinking about next quarter or the one after. This is common among struggling companies with cash flow issues.
It's an ongoing joke that the way you get raises in some places is to leave and come back. I've seen it happen multiple times where the end result was more than %30 markup to do the same job. Coming back as a contractor can net you even more, at the expense of a bit of job security. Fortunately I don't work in a place like that now.
If the promise isn't on paper, what are they going to say? It's not like the can say much to future prospective employers who call to confirm your employment claims beyond confirming your employment dates and saying "Yes, they could be hired back here in the future" or "No, we would never hire them back". (If they do say anything more, they are taking legal risks..)
It is a small world at times and you would be burring a bridge, but if somebody is willing to pay me 40% more, I think I would have to seriously consider the option. For me, tough, it seems that such a raise would unlikely to be legit anyway, I'm pretty well maxed out right now for what I do.
Good for you... I have an average of about 7 years per job myself, but I had some really short stints at a couple of places that went belly up unexpectedly.
I think a lot of companies count on short term employment, which is unfortunate because what ends up happening is talent keeps shuffling in and out and nobody cares because "that's the way it is". But it actually is better for a company to recognize the good talent and pay them more than average and do what it takes to retain them if you can, otherwise the revolving door ends up stacking up the lower end talent like cord wood and makes them hard to get rid of.
However the issue with this is it requires you come up with a system to recognize the good talent and reward it... When you throw money into the mix, it quickly becomes a political game that's hard to do right and it's legally dangerous to actually recognize talent because it means you are also saying somebody isn't as good.
Smart companies lean how to do this, mediocre companies just muddle though hoping the revolving door provides them enough talent and not another log for the wood pile....
Fine, as long as everybody understands this. However I think there are some who try to dump the fossil fueled plants when they see stuff like this, and THAT was what I was trying to prevent.
I don't disagree.. Please see my original post....
My point is, you need to keep them around and maintained. Which is my basic point with most renewables.. They are great and do allow us to burn less fossil fuels, but we still need the old capacity sitting there ready to take up the slack.
Try to look at Trumps Twitter problem from his perspective and I think you will see that he's actually got a reason for this.
Recall two things... #1. Trump is at war with what he calls "fake news" which he defines as pretty much every major media outlet. #2. Twitter goes *directly* to the public, unfiltered, unedited, exactly as he types it into a tweet.
In his view, he is bypassing the anti-Trump bias in the news media by tweeting directly to the public.
Now, you can love or hate him, agree or disagree with him, but you have to admit that's not a bad reason to do what he's doing... I do wish he had a bit more polish and tact on Twitter and wish he would perhaps get them vetted a bit more by some PR experts, but understanding who Trump is helps in understanding why he says what he does on Twitter.
The problem here is we don't have all the facts and we will NEVER know if or when we do have all the facts.
There is a practice called Plausible deniability, which basically means that for some activities there is no direct order from the authority to do it, it's just understood (rightly or wrongly) it should be done. This is what tripped Nixon up, because those stupid tapes showed that he was attempting to maintain the ability to deny he had anything to do with Watergate. Even if we had that 18 min and 20 seconds of audio that sunk him and it didn't incriminate him, there would *still* be the question, did he not really know and approve? Was there an unrecorded conversation, wink or nod? For Nixon, it didn't mater.
So we need to break this down into at least two parts... 1. Was there actually a wire tap? 2. Who ordered it and why?
1. Yes. It seems obvious to me that it's very likely there WAS an wire tap in place if not on Trump, on people very close to him.. It was reported weeks ago and not denied then. Trump then tweets about it, so based on wide agreement from all sides, it sure seems some kind of wire tapping was going on...
2. Nobody knows yet... Nobody has yet owned up to the reason the wiretapping took place. Trump is insinuating that it was politically motivated and came from Obama. I'm sure Obama's denial of this means he didn't directly order this though formal channels (I believe him in that way) but this *could* be simply how it was arranged (Plausible deniability) and some Obama loyalist figured it was a good idea and did it on their own. It's hard to know...
Personally, I want to know WHY the FISA courts issued the warrant. What was the reason and who was asking? I also want to know how the information is flowing from the FISA warrant into the public domain? Until we know that, I don't see where we shouldn't take Obama at his word.
You pretend as if Diesel Storage does not cost money.
Really? It does? Say it isn't so (sarc off)
Of course it does. It also costs money to keep those diesel generators in working order, even when they are not actually being used....
But my point here is, they have to keep them and maintain them regardless of the solar panels and batteries. Why? Because there is no way then can afford to put in enough batteries (with solar panels to charge them) to guarantee the lights stay on
I'm all for this, just don't start thinking they can ditch the diesel plant. You see, the crazy folks who see this and don't think might be ready to believe that "Hey, they can just throw away those diesel plants now and go 100% solar, this PROOVES it!" when it doesn't. I'm just saying they shouldn't toss the diesel plants into the ocean, they will eventually need them to keep the lights on.
Slashdot Mirror
From the "Close cover before striking" School of IT Skills?
Sure, until IBM offshores it.. (after taking their slice of the pie)
My thoughts exactly.. Until you get in to extremely long wavelengths and really high power levels, 6,000' of salt water makes a really good RF blocker.
Perhaps they mean some kind of sonar link or that Boatface has to surface to uplink stuff?
Damn, I guess that "Yellow" wouldn't have been a good name for this submarine...
I'm not living in that thing....
They say the brain is the second thing to go.. I forget what the first thing was.....
I mean he hasn't actually implemented any policies but let's go ahead and give him credit....
Actually he HAS been doing things since November 8th that may have affected this in a positive way. Sometimes just talking about doing something from the bully pulpit the president (and president elect) has can have positive (or negative) affects on the mind set of the people. Just the prospect of new/better policies can have a positive affect even before they can be enacted.
Case in point: Jimmy Carter and his "malaise speech" which was largely blamed for making the 70's seem worse than it was and depressing the country (not that his policies didn't hurt us too.) But it's clear that the president (and president elect) have quite a bit of power in this regard...
I'll leave it to others to argue if what Trump has said helped or hurt, but it's clear that the markets have been on an upward slope since he got elected.
So... what's easier to guess "password" or "Denver17!" ? I know what I'm going to bet gets broken first..
Both are in the "basically worthless" category. the first one is straight out of a word list. The second follows one of the most common patterns: "Llllll##?".
So, isn't dictionary checking a common password rule and didn't you just make an argument FOR using it? It would have eliminated BOTH of these worthless passwords right?
I rest my case..
Which is why I say "It depends"
The original question was posed as a Yes or No answer. The real answer is a lot more complex than yes or no which is why I say It depends.
As you point out, password complexity rules don't guarantee your users accounts are secure, but NOT using them sure lets your users ignore any pretense at security if they so choose. And your point that it is more about the culture and enforcement of the rules that really is the proper question to be addressing. Things like not sharing accounts, controlling physical access, forcing regular password changes and other such things not directly related to password complexity must all be in place for a comprehensive security plan to work as it should.
Ok.. It depends.... Password rules, like anything, when used within reason CAN increase security.
There has been some research which arrive at the conclusion that yes, indeed, password rules are actually bullshit for security.
What study? Where I agree, aggressive use of password rules doesn't always help, just because they rule out a subset of secure passwords doesn't mean they are totally BS. The argument that password rules always lead to secure passwords is also false. But OBVIOUSLY password rules force the user to avoid the common pitfalls in password selection and will more likely cause your users to have passwords that are not easily cracked.
So... what's easier to guess "password" or "Denver17!" ? I know what I'm going to bet gets broken first..
Really, security is playing the odds anyway. You want to stack the deck in your favor where you can, so if that means forcing your users to follow some rules in password selections gets you 50% more secure passwords.... Do it.. In this case, I'm not inclined to believe password complexity rules are just bad, any more than I think they are a 100% solution. So, my answer stands.. It depends...
LOL... Be careful... There is a proverb that goes something like "don't call people fools, lest you become one yourself"
Under estimating the opposition is a common way to lose..
Yes.
You are wrong. The correct answer is NO.... Well maybe that's not the right answer either...
Ok.. It depends.... Password rules, like anything, when used within reason CAN increase security. The question is what constitutes "within reason". Keeping folks from choosing common an easily guessed passwords on a system you need to be somewhat secure is a good thing... Making passwords so complex users need to write them down is not a good thing. So it depends. Depends on the security needs of the system and the exact password rules being used.
Why? Do you think that situation applies in this case? I don't. We are talking about an island with 65,000 people and tourists on it year round. A couple of barrels of diesel wouldn't keep the generators running very long with the kind of demand I'm sure they have..
Likely diesel is handled the same was as gasoline and pumped ashore. I'm not sure they have an underwater pipeline or if it comes from ships. Either way, I'm sure it's a LOT more expensive than the already exurbanite prices on the main island.
I think only a fool doesn't meter out raises that match inflation at a minimum... Unless you are looking to reduce your labor force through attrition.
Further, companies that don't dish out more than average salaries for their best employees, are NOT watching their bottom line in the long term but are making the often repeated mistake I call "Manage to quarter". This is where the share price at the end of THIS quarter is all that matters, nobody is thinking about next quarter or the one after. This is common among struggling companies with cash flow issues.
It's an ongoing joke that the way you get raises in some places is to leave and come back. I've seen it happen multiple times where the end result was more than %30 markup to do the same job. Coming back as a contractor can net you even more, at the expense of a bit of job security. Fortunately I don't work in a place like that now.
If the promise isn't on paper, what are they going to say? It's not like the can say much to future prospective employers who call to confirm your employment claims beyond confirming your employment dates and saying "Yes, they could be hired back here in the future" or "No, we would never hire them back". (If they do say anything more, they are taking legal risks..)
It is a small world at times and you would be burring a bridge, but if somebody is willing to pay me 40% more, I think I would have to seriously consider the option. For me, tough, it seems that such a raise would unlikely to be legit anyway, I'm pretty well maxed out right now for what I do.
Hey, got to make money somehow... But you are right, it makes it hard for the ad blocking software to catch them...
You need to put the tinfoil hat back on, relax and take your medication... Remember, breathe in thought mouth and out though the nose...
Good for you... I have an average of about 7 years per job myself, but I had some really short stints at a couple of places that went belly up unexpectedly.
I think a lot of companies count on short term employment, which is unfortunate because what ends up happening is talent keeps shuffling in and out and nobody cares because "that's the way it is". But it actually is better for a company to recognize the good talent and pay them more than average and do what it takes to retain them if you can, otherwise the revolving door ends up stacking up the lower end talent like cord wood and makes them hard to get rid of.
However the issue with this is it requires you come up with a system to recognize the good talent and reward it... When you throw money into the mix, it quickly becomes a political game that's hard to do right and it's legally dangerous to actually recognize talent because it means you are also saying somebody isn't as good.
Smart companies lean how to do this, mediocre companies just muddle though hoping the revolving door provides them enough talent and not another log for the wood pile....
Fine, as long as everybody understands this. However I think there are some who try to dump the fossil fueled plants when they see stuff like this, and THAT was what I was trying to prevent.
I don't disagree.. Please see my original post....
My point is, you need to keep them around and maintained. Which is my basic point with most renewables.. They are great and do allow us to burn less fossil fuels, but we still need the old capacity sitting there ready to take up the slack.
Try to look at Trumps Twitter problem from his perspective and I think you will see that he's actually got a reason for this.
Recall two things... #1. Trump is at war with what he calls "fake news" which he defines as pretty much every major media outlet. #2. Twitter goes *directly* to the public, unfiltered, unedited, exactly as he types it into a tweet.
In his view, he is bypassing the anti-Trump bias in the news media by tweeting directly to the public.
Now, you can love or hate him, agree or disagree with him, but you have to admit that's not a bad reason to do what he's doing... I do wish he had a bit more polish and tact on Twitter and wish he would perhaps get them vetted a bit more by some PR experts, but understanding who Trump is helps in understanding why he says what he does on Twitter.
The problem here is we don't have all the facts and we will NEVER know if or when we do have all the facts.
There is a practice called Plausible deniability, which basically means that for some activities there is no direct order from the authority to do it, it's just understood (rightly or wrongly) it should be done. This is what tripped Nixon up, because those stupid tapes showed that he was attempting to maintain the ability to deny he had anything to do with Watergate. Even if we had that 18 min and 20 seconds of audio that sunk him and it didn't incriminate him, there would *still* be the question, did he not really know and approve? Was there an unrecorded conversation, wink or nod? For Nixon, it didn't mater.
So we need to break this down into at least two parts... 1. Was there actually a wire tap? 2. Who ordered it and why?
1. Yes. It seems obvious to me that it's very likely there WAS an wire tap in place if not on Trump, on people very close to him.. It was reported weeks ago and not denied then. Trump then tweets about it, so based on wide agreement from all sides, it sure seems some kind of wire tapping was going on...
2. Nobody knows yet... Nobody has yet owned up to the reason the wiretapping took place. Trump is insinuating that it was politically motivated and came from Obama. I'm sure Obama's denial of this means he didn't directly order this though formal channels (I believe him in that way) but this *could* be simply how it was arranged (Plausible deniability) and some Obama loyalist figured it was a good idea and did it on their own. It's hard to know...
Personally, I want to know WHY the FISA courts issued the warrant. What was the reason and who was asking? I also want to know how the information is flowing from the FISA warrant into the public domain? Until we know that, I don't see where we shouldn't take Obama at his word.
You pretend as if Diesel Storage does not cost money.
Really? It does? Say it isn't so (sarc off)
Of course it does. It also costs money to keep those diesel generators in working order, even when they are not actually being used....
But my point here is, they have to keep them and maintain them regardless of the solar panels and batteries. Why? Because there is no way then can afford to put in enough batteries (with solar panels to charge them) to guarantee the lights stay on
Maybe you are misreading what I said....
I'm all for this, just don't start thinking they can ditch the diesel plant. You see, the crazy folks who see this and don't think might be ready to believe that "Hey, they can just throw away those diesel plants now and go 100% solar, this PROOVES it!" when it doesn't. I'm just saying they shouldn't toss the diesel plants into the ocean, they will eventually need them to keep the lights on.
Yea, you've never heard of a hurricane going by the place in the middle of the ocean? It can mean DAYS of clouds and rain...