Cisco gear isn't suitable for most of the environments where this stuff goes. There's a whole world of networking applications that require industrial hardness. No cooling fans or vents, a form factor to fit on DIN rails, and even intrinsically safe (i.e., won't make sparks that would ignite flammable gases) characteristics. Oh, also...tolerance to heat (small substations don't have cooled server rooms, for example, and neither do a lot of facilities in the oil/gas world), hardened ability to resist RF and EM interference, being sealed against dust...the list goes on and on.
Cisco and the companies you're used to have largely foregone this market, leaving it to companies like RuggedCom, Hirschmann, GarrettCom, and the like. Cisco does have a line of gear that aims at this market, but they just introduced it, the line is relatively small, and they don't have much traction yet. I work in this field, myself, and I like Cisco gear; I'll put it in wherever I can, when doing a design. But for a lot of cases, you simply *can't* use it, at all.
The TCO of is more than the cost of installing it.
Joce640k is spot-on, and I'll elaborate. Do you really think that most users are capable of being just fine on a Fedora-based laptop? That users will never forget the credentials to decrypt their hard drives? Or that things won't go wrong...like a bad sector, for example? Support and recovery are the most expensive parts of disk encryption, by far. Additionally, in most situations where encryption is in use, there are regulatory mandates like FIPS or PCI DSS in place, and thus there's a need to provide reporting to demonstrate compliance. Checking a box in Fedora is nice, but doesn't give you the management capability and reporting that you get from a commercial solution that has a central point of management. So for a user or two, sure...check the box. For a company or a part of a company? Get a real solution that's manageable at scale.
Let's face it...this is yet another iteration of the dance we've seen before. Extreme Programming, Agile Programming, and so on. Companies keep hoping that there's a methodology that can be applied to the process of coding and development that will homogenize their workforce, allowing them to look at coders more like cookie-cutter individuals. There are multiple drivers behind this: the difficulty of assessing a programmer's talent during the recruiting process, the desire to use cheaper resources, especially in outsourced business models, and the challenges that result from coders who turn out not to be a good fit with their role. But at the end of the day, coding is a creative process, and creativity fares poorly under standardized, one-size-fits-all models.
Yeah, this is my recollection of Slashdot back in the day too. They sometimes got things a little off, but not with the frequency to the same degree as happens now.
The only way they'd think they were told it would protect against bomb blasts is if they got their information from Slashdot without RTFA. The article clearly explains that it's not protection against bombs, just the flash of heat that accompanies them. This is a major problem for troops who are not directed to the direct trajectory of shrapnel but who still sustain nasty burns; just imagine a bit of facial scarring, and ask yourself if face paint that would have prevented it would be welcome?
Of course, these days Slashdot manages to post links to articles without actually reading the article themselves, somehow...
Actually, it would be like a car warranty guaranteeing that people couldn't crash into you, no matter how hard they tried of how much they tricked out/modified their own vehicles to make it easier to hit you.
I think what he meant was that "legitimate rape" is rape performed legitimately...within the sanctity of a marriage, and good old-fashioned family values. You know, not just rape, but the wholesome kind. And he was speaking from experience on the rarity of pregnancy happening from this kind of rape...after all, he only has six kids.
Now, as for all those sluts who get raped without marrying the guy first...well, extra double dumb-ass on them, I guess...
And it's also not apples and oranges because spammers aren't people...they are bots. They aren't checking to see if their posts are still there, since there's not much they can do about it one way or the other, and it takes up resources (and is hard to program) to do so. The bots just go on their merry way, regardless of what is done. You're better off just whacking the spam or setting things up so that it requires a human to post in the first place.
I don't think you understand what a tethering app really is. It's not something that researches launch to clean up other malware. It's something that allowed you to use your iPhone as a hotspot, before any of the cellular providers had permitted it (at all). Back in the days when unlimited data plans for iPhones were somewhat common, this was seen as a problem by the cellular providers. People didn't download the flashlight app and say "Ah, surprise! My phone is doing something malicious!" Nothing malicious at all was happening. The "mal" in "malware" doesn't come from virus writers' love of Firefly's lead character...it stands for "malicious," and the people who downloaded the app knew exactly what they were getting, and wanted that functionality. Even the articles that refer to that app do not call it malware.
Sorry guys, but he's got a point. The attack vector here is an app that people voluntarily run, and the walled garden has been effective against that. Are there other vectors? Yeah. But that doesn't mean that his point about this one vector is wrong...it's not wrong at all. It took 5 years for the first malicious app to slip past Apple, and even then, the nature of how it all works meant Apple could remove it from everyone's iPhone with a single update. Android can't boast the same, either on the prevention or the remediation side. I don't hold any hate for either side, but this is just simple truth we're talking here. There have been scores of trojaned Android apps, and many for jailbroken iPhones as well...but only one, ever, for standard iPhones.
It said "or," as in "8 hours of continuous reading or approximately 7.5 hours of video playback."
I suspect that the challenge here had to do with procurement rules. It's against the rules to design an RFP or RFQ in such a way that only one vendor can fulfill the requirements. It sometimes happens that the requirements are immutable and the RFP ends up being built that way, but that has to be proven, and I find it difficult to imagine that the Kindle is such a totally mind-blowing device that a Nook, for example, couldn't actually meet their needs as well. (I own a Kindle, and love it, mind you...it's just that the Kindle hasn't been the unapproachable paramount that the iPad is in the tablet market, in my opinion.) So I think someone had a predilection for Kindles, wrote the spec that way, and is now getting bitten by that no-no.
The answer depends on a few different things. One, how durable a device do you need? Most e-readers are a bit tougher. Two, where will you be reading? If you expect a lot of outdoors reading, definitely go with the e-reader...otherwise, it won't matter. Three, how much use do you have for a tablet's functions? Tablets can do more than e-readers. Battery life: the nod goes to e-readers. Versatilty: tablets win. Up to you...
I just can't believe that I've read a short paragraph that contained a reference to Kasparov by name along with the phrase "Pussy Riot." These are wonderful times we live in...
This is best summed up by, oddly enough, a joke by Emo Philips...
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
I don't know if you realize this or not, but you have a few things wrong. One, the United States isn't 300 years old...so, uh yeah. Two, Islam doesn't exactly need defending either; Muslims outnumber Christians in the world, and while there are no real countried (the Vatican doesn't count) that are Christian theocracies, there are many Muslim ones, including many (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) that are quite influential due to petrochemical resources they control.
None of what you cited is a reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity. The reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity is simple: the right already does it. You cite Jerry Falwell...both a right-wing activist and a Christian evangelist. Pat Robertson...same, as you pointed out. Neither of them would agree that Christianity...in any nation..does not need defending, however. They are quite clear on that point.
My concern isn't about motive, but about how effective they'll be at protecting privacy. Whenever I've been involved in projects that are run by an academic body, I find that the security of it suffers. There isn't a lot of money for technical controls, and there isn't usually a lot of operational experience that is needed for solid procedural controls either. Ask any IT security professional who's had to implement security at a college, and you'll also learn that there's vehement opposition to technical controls, as though they would make it harder to learn. I had a professor literally start screaming at a colleague once because he suggested putting a firewall in place in front of some administrative systems. I'm not kidding...he literally erupted, right there, no warning, over the mention of a firewall. I'd never seen anything like it before, but have since seen it happen more than once.
Slashdot even covered something like this over a month ago...CrowdRE is the collaborative model put together by a group called CrowdStrike. The Georgia Tech version sounds like a "me too" thing, if you ask me...and I don't know that I'd trust a university to ensure the functional privacy of something like this either.
Slashdot Mirror
For not using Cisco Gear. ...
*ducks*
Cisco gear isn't suitable for most of the environments where this stuff goes. There's a whole world of networking applications that require industrial hardness. No cooling fans or vents, a form factor to fit on DIN rails, and even intrinsically safe (i.e., won't make sparks that would ignite flammable gases) characteristics. Oh, also...tolerance to heat (small substations don't have cooled server rooms, for example, and neither do a lot of facilities in the oil/gas world), hardened ability to resist RF and EM interference, being sealed against dust...the list goes on and on.
Cisco and the companies you're used to have largely foregone this market, leaving it to companies like RuggedCom, Hirschmann, GarrettCom, and the like. Cisco does have a line of gear that aims at this market, but they just introduced it, the line is relatively small, and they don't have much traction yet. I work in this field, myself, and I like Cisco gear; I'll put it in wherever I can, when doing a design. But for a lot of cases, you simply *can't* use it, at all.
The TCO of is more than the cost of installing it.
Joce640k is spot-on, and I'll elaborate. Do you really think that most users are capable of being just fine on a Fedora-based laptop? That users will never forget the credentials to decrypt their hard drives? Or that things won't go wrong...like a bad sector, for example? Support and recovery are the most expensive parts of disk encryption, by far. Additionally, in most situations where encryption is in use, there are regulatory mandates like FIPS or PCI DSS in place, and thus there's a need to provide reporting to demonstrate compliance. Checking a box in Fedora is nice, but doesn't give you the management capability and reporting that you get from a commercial solution that has a central point of management. So for a user or two, sure...check the box. For a company or a part of a company? Get a real solution that's manageable at scale.
Yeah...because there were *never* cyberattacks or worms before Stuxnet. Damn you, Obama, for giving rise to hacking and malware!
Let's face it...this is yet another iteration of the dance we've seen before. Extreme Programming, Agile Programming, and so on. Companies keep hoping that there's a methodology that can be applied to the process of coding and development that will homogenize their workforce, allowing them to look at coders more like cookie-cutter individuals. There are multiple drivers behind this: the difficulty of assessing a programmer's talent during the recruiting process, the desire to use cheaper resources, especially in outsourced business models, and the challenges that result from coders who turn out not to be a good fit with their role. But at the end of the day, coding is a creative process, and creativity fares poorly under standardized, one-size-fits-all models.
Yeah, this is my recollection of Slashdot back in the day too. They sometimes got things a little off, but not with the frequency to the same degree as happens now.
The only way they'd think they were told it would protect against bomb blasts is if they got their information from Slashdot without RTFA. The article clearly explains that it's not protection against bombs, just the flash of heat that accompanies them. This is a major problem for troops who are not directed to the direct trajectory of shrapnel but who still sustain nasty burns; just imagine a bit of facial scarring, and ask yourself if face paint that would have prevented it would be welcome?
Of course, these days Slashdot manages to post links to articles without actually reading the article themselves, somehow...
The fact that "derp" is generally a more popular choice than a reasoned, deliberate stand on one side of a choice is news because...?
Actually, it would be like a car warranty guaranteeing that people couldn't crash into you, no matter how hard they tried of how much they tricked out/modified their own vehicles to make it easier to hit you.
Yeah, but my way of saying it was funnier :)
I think what he was getting at is this:
I think what he meant was that "legitimate rape" is rape performed legitimately...within the sanctity of a marriage, and good old-fashioned family values. You know, not just rape, but the wholesome kind. And he was speaking from experience on the rarity of pregnancy happening from this kind of rape...after all, he only has six kids.
Now, as for all those sluts who get raped without marrying the guy first...well, extra double dumb-ass on them, I guess...
I left HP a few months ago for greener (less insane) pastures. From my perspective, you are absolutely correct.
And it's also not apples and oranges because spammers aren't people...they are bots. They aren't checking to see if their posts are still there, since there's not much they can do about it one way or the other, and it takes up resources (and is hard to program) to do so. The bots just go on their merry way, regardless of what is done. You're better off just whacking the spam or setting things up so that it requires a human to post in the first place.
I don't think you understand what a tethering app really is. It's not something that researches launch to clean up other malware. It's something that allowed you to use your iPhone as a hotspot, before any of the cellular providers had permitted it (at all). Back in the days when unlimited data plans for iPhones were somewhat common, this was seen as a problem by the cellular providers. People didn't download the flashlight app and say "Ah, surprise! My phone is doing something malicious!" Nothing malicious at all was happening. The "mal" in "malware" doesn't come from virus writers' love of Firefly's lead character...it stands for "malicious," and the people who downloaded the app knew exactly what they were getting, and wanted that functionality. Even the articles that refer to that app do not call it malware.
Yep. That is the one malicious app.
A tethering app is not malware. It's software that the users wanted, but the cell phone companies didn't want. And it's "past," not "passed."
Sorry guys, but he's got a point. The attack vector here is an app that people voluntarily run, and the walled garden has been effective against that. Are there other vectors? Yeah. But that doesn't mean that his point about this one vector is wrong...it's not wrong at all. It took 5 years for the first malicious app to slip past Apple, and even then, the nature of how it all works meant Apple could remove it from everyone's iPhone with a single update. Android can't boast the same, either on the prevention or the remediation side. I don't hold any hate for either side, but this is just simple truth we're talking here. There have been scores of trojaned Android apps, and many for jailbroken iPhones as well...but only one, ever, for standard iPhones.
It said "or," as in "8 hours of continuous reading or approximately 7.5 hours of video playback."
I suspect that the challenge here had to do with procurement rules. It's against the rules to design an RFP or RFQ in such a way that only one vendor can fulfill the requirements. It sometimes happens that the requirements are immutable and the RFP ends up being built that way, but that has to be proven, and I find it difficult to imagine that the Kindle is such a totally mind-blowing device that a Nook, for example, couldn't actually meet their needs as well. (I own a Kindle, and love it, mind you...it's just that the Kindle hasn't been the unapproachable paramount that the iPad is in the tablet market, in my opinion.) So I think someone had a predilection for Kindles, wrote the spec that way, and is now getting bitten by that no-no.
The answer depends on a few different things. One, how durable a device do you need? Most e-readers are a bit tougher. Two, where will you be reading? If you expect a lot of outdoors reading, definitely go with the e-reader...otherwise, it won't matter. Three, how much use do you have for a tablet's functions? Tablets can do more than e-readers. Battery life: the nod goes to e-readers. Versatilty: tablets win. Up to you...
More likely, MySQL will follow the path of other things, and fork...in the process, telling Oracle to fork off.
I just can't believe that I've read a short paragraph that contained a reference to Kasparov by name along with the phrase "Pussy Riot." These are wonderful times we live in...
This is best summed up by, oddly enough, a joke by Emo Philips...
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"
He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
I don't know if you realize this or not, but you have a few things wrong. One, the United States isn't 300 years old...so, uh yeah. Two, Islam doesn't exactly need defending either; Muslims outnumber Christians in the world, and while there are no real countried (the Vatican doesn't count) that are Christian theocracies, there are many Muslim ones, including many (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) that are quite influential due to petrochemical resources they control.
None of what you cited is a reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity. The reason that the left doesn't defend Christianity is simple: the right already does it. You cite Jerry Falwell...both a right-wing activist and a Christian evangelist. Pat Robertson...same, as you pointed out. Neither of them would agree that Christianity...in any nation..does not need defending, however. They are quite clear on that point.
...object to the Saudis in general. Can I petition to get the gTLD of ".rag" rejected?
My concern isn't about motive, but about how effective they'll be at protecting privacy. Whenever I've been involved in projects that are run by an academic body, I find that the security of it suffers. There isn't a lot of money for technical controls, and there isn't usually a lot of operational experience that is needed for solid procedural controls either. Ask any IT security professional who's had to implement security at a college, and you'll also learn that there's vehement opposition to technical controls, as though they would make it harder to learn. I had a professor literally start screaming at a colleague once because he suggested putting a firewall in place in front of some administrative systems. I'm not kidding...he literally erupted, right there, no warning, over the mention of a firewall. I'd never seen anything like it before, but have since seen it happen more than once.
Slashdot even covered something like this over a month ago...CrowdRE is the collaborative model put together by a group called CrowdStrike. The Georgia Tech version sounds like a "me too" thing, if you ask me...and I don't know that I'd trust a university to ensure the functional privacy of something like this either.