Exactly. Give someone the choice of doing something that is for the good of all but requires some effort, or selfishly refusing to do anything at all, and that person will pick the selfish choice 9 times out of 10. People are fucking lazy, and frequently don't do the right thing until they're forced to.
Um, no. People of your bent are so quick to sprint towards the extreme and the hyperbolic. You should become familiar with the concept of "grey". Not everything is black and white.
If we lived in a society that was mature enough to not require the use of force to protect the group from the individual, then hey, enjoy your Randian pariadise. We don't. Restrict the power of the state beyond a certain point and watch the world burn.
There is a difference between having a government respectful of individual rights, and one that justifies enforcing every aspect of everyone's life because they by claiming every activity affects all the taxpayers.
And of course, there is nothing in between. All or nothing.
You can have things like taxes that pay for education, without telling everyone their children will be wards of the state every day for eight hours or you go to jail
Sure, let's let people not send their kids to school. Do you want a stupid population that's easily controlled? Because that's how you get a stupid population that's easily controlled. Do away with mandatory education and people will get stupider than they already are. You really want that?
The problem with giving all rights to the individual and none to the state is that people make stupid decisions that make things worse for everyone else.
I also noticed how you didn't answer my question about solving conflicts and enforcing contracts. Yeah, don't have an answer for that one, do you?
Individual rights must be limited. The power of one person to destroy things that others rely on to live must be curbed. You can have a society that respects individual rights but still serves the group. I'm not ready to sacrifice civilization on your altar.
How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life.
That's different from anarchy how, exactly? Who resolves conflicts between two people? Who enforces contracts? Who sanctions destructive behavior?
Oh, right, magically everyone will act with total respect for everyone else's well-being. Nobody will act selfishly to the detriment of others at all. I had forgotten that Ayn Rand was God.
Why do statist always think that when someone objects to elevating the rights of the state to impose its will on people, they always assume that the person objecting must be some crazy anarchist or something?
Statistics and previous experience.
The many impose their will on the few. That's the difference between a productive society and anarchy.
Individual rights always result in better outcomes than collectivist rights. You seem to think the latter is preferred, even when I pointed out where using such a principle can lead.
Depends on how you define "better". We could give one person absolute authority over all (which is the ultimate expression of individual rights) and that person would probably say it's a pretty damn good outcome. Everyone else would probably think it sucks.
I think the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has some excellent stuff in it - except near the bottom the invalidating disclaimer: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
No. Individuals need to be protected from those who would do them harm. We're not talking about ideas here, we're talking about people's lives.
And we remove people from the group all the time. See: prisons, etc.
I think you are smart enough to see where this leads. "Society" needs to be protected - from dangerous ideas spread by some individual. So "society" implements a change to the "contract" (that nobody signed) and now "dangerous" speech is a death sentence.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
Which is why the flu vaccine is updated each year, to counteract the virii that have developed immunity to the previous year's vaccine. This is not the same situation as it is with antibiotics. We can't update antibiotics each year for the new batch of bacteria out there which have developed resistance to currently available drugs.
The flu vaccine saves lives, period. Maybe it's not 100% effective, but it's still better than nothing.
Give me a fucking break. Remember that there are other people in the world besides you, and they are just as important as you are. Society as a concept may not have rights, but the individuals do; one of the rights that is given to individuals by society is protection from the malicious and incompetent.
Your right to swing your fist (or associate with people you know you may kill through exposure to the disease you currently have) ends at the tip of my nose. Society has decided that this is an appropriate compromise between your rights and the rights of others. There's only so much of an asshole you can be before you get sanctioned by the will of the people.
If the IT consulting company can deliver the results for less money
Which they can't. Have you ever SEEN some of the pureed shit that masquerades as code from (some) overseas developers? More often than not domestic coders have to be called in to un-fuck their shit, resulting in additional expenses that wipe out any savings realized from outsourcing the initial development.
"You get what you pay for" doesn't really work when the ignorant suits who make the decisions don't understand what they're getting. All they know is that they gave the developers a vague set of specs and instead of domestic workers demanding more complete descriptions, the overseas workers keep their mouths shut and do whatever they think is what the customer wants. When the overseas devs send back their crap, all the suits know is that it cost less RIGHT NOW to get that work done. Never mind that they've doubled (or more) their future maintenance costs, it's all about quarterly results.
Does it tell you how much of that "entitlement" spending goes to retirees and disabled veterans? Does it tell you how it's not an "entitlement" but something that the people who receive the entitlement have paid for in either cash or blood?
If you want to fix the budget problem, cut military spending. We spend more on "defense" than the next 5 countries on the list combined.
50% effectiveness is still better than 0. (The real number is between 30 and 40 percent this time around, if I remember right.) So, around 2 out of 5 times, you will not get the flu. Those are better odds than having no immunity at all. The flu shot is almost always well tolerated; the side effects and adverse reactions are generally mild, and miles better than getting the flu (which kills tens of thousands of people each year).
I agree that Big Pharma considers profits more important than people's health. And that the profit motive is what has the USA health care system in such a state of fuck-uppery.
You have a choice. You can always leave society. I didn't have any choice of where I was born or what civilization I was born into, either. I got over it.
The issue of global warming is a whole lot more complicated than that. It refers to an enormous body of facts, many of which are suggestive of opposing ultimate conclusions.
Yeah, 3 out of every 100 studies disagree with the other 97. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that man is causing the planet to warm up at rates never before seen in the fossil record. The only controversy is "is 97 larger than 3".
For example, even after it is established that the temperature has risen steadily for the past few decades, that does not by itself prove that this change was caused by man-made pollution, nor that self-regulation will do anything to stop it. Establishing such things is no easy task, and it involves judgment calls as well as statements of fact.
Fact: Man has been dumping CO2 from burning fossil fuels in enormous quantities into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Fact: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes the planet warmer. Fact: The planet has never warmed up so quickly in the entire fossil record. The science is pretty settled on this one. We're doing it, and we need to do something to stop it.
That is why scientists, our paragons of objectivity, wind up disagreeing with each other on this issue.
Scientists disagree with each other on everything. There are always competing theories. That's called "science". You formulate a theory, you make observations and conduct experiments, and the evidence you gather tends to support or discredit the theory. Science does not require unanimity; in fact, it requires the opposite. If 100% of all scientists agreed that AGW was real, something is very very wrong. But if 97% agree that it's real, the theory is overwhelmingly well supported.
Saying "a fact is a fact" doesn't resolve this complexity, nor does it help people who are not scientists and who are trying to decide which group of scientists are more trustworthy.
You're confusing measurement with scientific consensus. You can say with a high degree of certainty that the temperature outside is, for example, 20 degrees Celsius (based on your own quantitative observations). You (or, better yet, several other people) can repeat the measurement concurrently with several thermometers and increase your confidence in the measurement. You can then conclude that it is a fact that it is 20 degrees Celsius outside. It is a fact that the atmosphere is warming up. It is a fact that we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at historically unprecedented rates. It is a fact that adding CO2 to a system tends to heat that system up in the presence of solar radiation. It is a theory that you can draw a straight line through all of these, and it's a very well supported theory. We call it a 'theory' because there is the possibility, however remote in this case, that the theory is wrong. Nothing in science is 100% certain; that's not a weakness, it's a strength. 100% certainty is called 'faith' and it does not require scientific evidence (and evidence contradicting the belief is routinely ignored, no matter how compelling.) Objectivity and trustworthiness are difficult things to control for; this is why evidence isn't considered reliable until the results have been repeated by multiple experiments by multiple scientists. One scientist's conclusions (for example, that vaccines cause autism) is meaningless until the results have been replicated (which, despite anything the anti-vaxxers tell you, they have not. Matter of fact, it was peer review that determined that the initial study that drew the conclusion was fatally flawed for a host of reasons, and the "scientists" that conducted the study were ejected from the community, losing their medical licenses in the process, because they were what I like to call "shitty scientists".) AGW as a theory is supported by an overwhelming consensus of evidence. I
I keep seeing stuff like this. Someone who is not stupid makes enough rope available, someone who IS stupid hangs themselves with it, and the first guy takes all the blame. We protect the stupid at all costs. The appropriate response to this is "Don't connect to hotspots you're not sure about, and if you do, take appropriate measures (VPN, https, etc)". No, this is too hard for the shitheads out there who keep getting protected from their own stupidity.
What I think the non-stupid people need to do is to stop helping these people. Next time, this guy should just keep quiet about what he did at the conference, and quietly sell the incriminating information he collects. Eventually the stupid people will either get tired of having their identities/all their money stolen, and wise the fuck up, or they won't and will be removed from the useful ranks of society. Either way the situation improves.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else. I'm saying that if I do something stupid, it's my own damn fault. We don't blame the truck driver when someone plays in traffic. The internet has been part of society in one way or another for over twenty years. It's long enough.
It would mean IT security and correct procedures would be much more likely to be followed.
What are the consequences for not following correct procedures at any time? Basically none. IT policy is considered a list of suggestions at most companies.
It would also raise the profile of IT within the organisation.
As an IT worker, you don't want a high profile. The tall nail gets hammered down. You don't want to be easily visible when it's time to pick a scapegoat. An IT department is doing its job when nobody knows who you are.
Too often IT is treated like the red-headed step child janitor, until it hits the fan.
The janitor has better job security. And when it hits the fan, it doesn't spray all over the people who caused the problem. IT, however is in the kill box. Why correct someone's behavior or train them, when it's so much easier to just fire people. Hell, they're probably mostly contractors to begin with, so they're about as disposable as a paper towel.
Please note: not every IT problem is caused by chair moisteners out in the cube farm. Recently our IT department lost our source control server. As in it's gone. As in there were no backups. As in the source of our flagship product just went in the bit bucket. Fortunately we were able to reconstruct from local copies on people's machines, but there's really no excuse for that sort of thing. This is one case where IT being highly visible is a symptom of the problem, which is gross incompetence in IT.
A government regulation requiring a company to do something? Socialism! Communism! Totalitarian oppression! Kenya! Benghazi! Birth certificate! Secret gay marriage! Cold dead hands!
(all of the previous have been seriously argued by certain elements in the American Right.)
Well is that so bad? If an end user is not doing what they're supposed to, and it impacts security, they should be fired.
*wakes up*
Oh, you mean IT folks getting fired for the consequences of a bad management decision made without their input. What was I thinking, firing people for gross violations of IT policy allows the terrorists to win.
End users: Got PCI scope on a machine, and put the password on a sticky note in a public area? Oh well, everyone makes mistakes. Stored PII on a laptop that is subsequently stolen? Don't worry about it. Borrowed your boss' password so you can access documents you're not authorized to see? Well, it saved your boss five minutes, so I guess it's OK. Tampered with the antivirus? It does make everything slow, doesn't it.
IT: An end user complained because you wouldn't let them install malware-riddled crap on their machine? YOU'RE FIRED! The printer that needed to be replaced 20 years ago broke down again? Incompetent idiot! YOU'RE FIRED! CEO wanted to set his never-expiring to password to "password" and you suggested a more secure string? Arrogant twit! YOU'RE FIRED! Security drill exposes embarrassingly bad policy breaches among upper management? Obviously you're trying to make them look bad because you're jealous of their success. YOU'RE FIRED!
Fission power is only expensive due to the excessive oversight imposed.
Can you imagine the horror show that would result from inadequate oversight? We insist on using for-profit companies to build our nuclear reactors - companies who make more money the more corners they cut. Companies whose management is not answerable to the people in any way. Companies that won't develop contingency plans because it's "too expensive", and without proper regulation there are no consequences.
We have a private company operating our water service here. They're awful. They have a stranglehold on the distribution infrastructure, so they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, legal or not. They cut corners and we had an 11-day boil order as a result. One of their managers was convicted of a crime and went to prison for tampering with water samples to make them appear cleaner than the water actually was. And that's just the stuff we know about. They probably get away with that kind of thing all the time; after all, it's only a crime if you get caught.
So, in short, private industry can't be trusted to build and operate the plants safely, and there would be Tea Party rioting in the streets if any of the plants were nationalized. These make nuclear power not viable in the USA. As far as environmental impact goes, the waste generated by producing solar panels doesn't require storage by the lowest bidder and isn't radioactive for thousands of years.
In fairness, security is frequently hampered by management that refuses to understand how critical infosec is. The Home Depot hack? Take a look at this:
Security staff had urged that a feature of their malware protection systems be turned on, for months.
"The former information security managers say that executives, including information security supervisor Jeff Mitchell, rebuffed efforts to bolster cyberdefenses. Two of the managers, who left the company in 2011 and 2012, both say Mitchell told them to settle for “C-level security” because more ambitious measures would be expensive and might disrupt critical systems. These priorities frustrated workers in the information security department, leading in the past three years to dozens of departures from a team of fewer than 50, the former managers say. Mitchell didn’t respond to requests for comment.
As it turns out, that manager was a criminal: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/09/home-depots-former-security-architect-had-history-of-techno-sabotage/ He's also the source of the infamous "We sell hammers" quote. So management was not only deliberately hindering security measures, they had a manager who eventually got convicted for deliberately destroying equipment and data at a previous job. It doesn't appear that HD fired him when the accusations came to light.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Give someone the choice of doing something that is for the good of all but requires some effort, or selfishly refusing to do anything at all, and that person will pick the selfish choice 9 times out of 10. People are fucking lazy, and frequently don't do the right thing until they're forced to.
We get it, you hate taxes.
Um, no. People of your bent are so quick to sprint towards the extreme and the hyperbolic. You should become familiar with the concept of "grey". Not everything is black and white.
If we lived in a society that was mature enough to not require the use of force to protect the group from the individual, then hey, enjoy your Randian pariadise. We don't. Restrict the power of the state beyond a certain point and watch the world burn.
And of course, there is nothing in between. All or nothing.
Sure, let's let people not send their kids to school. Do you want a stupid population that's easily controlled? Because that's how you get a stupid population that's easily controlled. Do away with mandatory education and people will get stupider than they already are. You really want that?
The problem with giving all rights to the individual and none to the state is that people make stupid decisions that make things worse for everyone else.
I also noticed how you didn't answer my question about solving conflicts and enforcing contracts. Yeah, don't have an answer for that one, do you?
Individual rights must be limited. The power of one person to destroy things that others rely on to live must be curbed. You can have a society that respects individual rights but still serves the group. I'm not ready to sacrifice civilization on your altar.
That's different from anarchy how, exactly? Who resolves conflicts between two people? Who enforces contracts? Who sanctions destructive behavior?
Oh, right, magically everyone will act with total respect for everyone else's well-being. Nobody will act selfishly to the detriment of others at all. I had forgotten that Ayn Rand was God.
Statistics and previous experience.
The many impose their will on the few. That's the difference between a productive society and anarchy.
Depends on how you define "better". We could give one person absolute authority over all (which is the ultimate expression of individual rights) and that person would probably say it's a pretty damn good outcome. Everyone else would probably think it sucks.
No argument there, I wasn't aware of that.
... That's not even remotely what I said.
No. Individuals need to be protected from those who would do them harm. We're not talking about ideas here, we're talking about people's lives.
And we remove people from the group all the time. See: prisons, etc.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Why don't you take your 'sovereign citizens", "objectivist", "Atlas Shrugged is the word of God", "OMG RULES!" ass and get a job, or something.
We're all equally non-important, then.
Which is why the flu vaccine is updated each year, to counteract the virii that have developed immunity to the previous year's vaccine. This is not the same situation as it is with antibiotics. We can't update antibiotics each year for the new batch of bacteria out there which have developed resistance to currently available drugs.
The flu vaccine saves lives, period. Maybe it's not 100% effective, but it's still better than nothing.
Give me a fucking break. Remember that there are other people in the world besides you, and they are just as important as you are. Society as a concept may not have rights, but the individuals do; one of the rights that is given to individuals by society is protection from the malicious and incompetent.
Your right to swing your fist (or associate with people you know you may kill through exposure to the disease you currently have) ends at the tip of my nose. Society has decided that this is an appropriate compromise between your rights and the rights of others. There's only so much of an asshole you can be before you get sanctioned by the will of the people.
Which they can't. Have you ever SEEN some of the pureed shit that masquerades as code from (some) overseas developers? More often than not domestic coders have to be called in to un-fuck their shit, resulting in additional expenses that wipe out any savings realized from outsourcing the initial development.
"You get what you pay for" doesn't really work when the ignorant suits who make the decisions don't understand what they're getting. All they know is that they gave the developers a vague set of specs and instead of domestic workers demanding more complete descriptions, the overseas workers keep their mouths shut and do whatever they think is what the customer wants. When the overseas devs send back their crap, all the suits know is that it cost less RIGHT NOW to get that work done. Never mind that they've doubled (or more) their future maintenance costs, it's all about quarterly results.
Does it tell you how much of that "entitlement" spending goes to retirees and disabled veterans? Does it tell you how it's not an "entitlement" but something that the people who receive the entitlement have paid for in either cash or blood?
If you want to fix the budget problem, cut military spending. We spend more on "defense" than the next 5 countries on the list combined.
50% effectiveness is still better than 0. (The real number is between 30 and 40 percent this time around, if I remember right.) So, around 2 out of 5 times, you will not get the flu. Those are better odds than having no immunity at all. The flu shot is almost always well tolerated; the side effects and adverse reactions are generally mild, and miles better than getting the flu (which kills tens of thousands of people each year).
I agree that Big Pharma considers profits more important than people's health. And that the profit motive is what has the USA health care system in such a state of fuck-uppery.
You have a choice. You can always leave society. I didn't have any choice of where I was born or what civilization I was born into, either. I got over it.
The science is settled. Man is causing climate change. Anyone who says different is lying for their own purposes or ideology.
Yeah, 3 out of every 100 studies disagree with the other 97. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that man is causing the planet to warm up at rates never before seen in the fossil record. The only controversy is "is 97 larger than 3".
Fact: Man has been dumping CO2 from burning fossil fuels in enormous quantities into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Fact: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes the planet warmer. Fact: The planet has never warmed up so quickly in the entire fossil record. The science is pretty settled on this one. We're doing it, and we need to do something to stop it.
Scientists disagree with each other on everything. There are always competing theories. That's called "science". You formulate a theory, you make observations and conduct experiments, and the evidence you gather tends to support or discredit the theory. Science does not require unanimity; in fact, it requires the opposite. If 100% of all scientists agreed that AGW was real, something is very very wrong. But if 97% agree that it's real, the theory is overwhelmingly well supported.
You're confusing measurement with scientific consensus. You can say with a high degree of certainty that the temperature outside is, for example, 20 degrees Celsius (based on your own quantitative observations). You (or, better yet, several other people) can repeat the measurement concurrently with several thermometers and increase your confidence in the measurement. You can then conclude that it is a fact that it is 20 degrees Celsius outside. It is a fact that the atmosphere is warming up. It is a fact that we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at historically unprecedented rates. It is a fact that adding CO2 to a system tends to heat that system up in the presence of solar radiation. It is a theory that you can draw a straight line through all of these, and it's a very well supported theory. We call it a 'theory' because there is the possibility, however remote in this case, that the theory is wrong. Nothing in science is 100% certain; that's not a weakness, it's a strength. 100% certainty is called 'faith' and it does not require scientific evidence (and evidence contradicting the belief is routinely ignored, no matter how compelling.) Objectivity and trustworthiness are difficult things to control for; this is why evidence isn't considered reliable until the results have been repeated by multiple experiments by multiple scientists. One scientist's conclusions (for example, that vaccines cause autism) is meaningless until the results have been replicated (which, despite anything the anti-vaxxers tell you, they have not. Matter of fact, it was peer review that determined that the initial study that drew the conclusion was fatally flawed for a host of reasons, and the "scientists" that conducted the study were ejected from the community, losing their medical licenses in the process, because they were what I like to call "shitty scientists".) AGW as a theory is supported by an overwhelming consensus of evidence. I
I keep seeing stuff like this. Someone who is not stupid makes enough rope available, someone who IS stupid hangs themselves with it, and the first guy takes all the blame. We protect the stupid at all costs. The appropriate response to this is "Don't connect to hotspots you're not sure about, and if you do, take appropriate measures (VPN, https, etc)". No, this is too hard for the shitheads out there who keep getting protected from their own stupidity.
What I think the non-stupid people need to do is to stop helping these people. Next time, this guy should just keep quiet about what he did at the conference, and quietly sell the incriminating information he collects. Eventually the stupid people will either get tired of having their identities/all their money stolen, and wise the fuck up, or they won't and will be removed from the useful ranks of society. Either way the situation improves.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else. I'm saying that if I do something stupid, it's my own damn fault. We don't blame the truck driver when someone plays in traffic. The internet has been part of society in one way or another for over twenty years. It's long enough.
Or, once you expose the atrocious security (non)behavior of the "higher ups", and forget to leave that out of the report, you get fired.
What are the consequences for not following correct procedures at any time? Basically none. IT policy is considered a list of suggestions at most companies.
As an IT worker, you don't want a high profile. The tall nail gets hammered down. You don't want to be easily visible when it's time to pick a scapegoat. An IT department is doing its job when nobody knows who you are.
The janitor has better job security. And when it hits the fan, it doesn't spray all over the people who caused the problem. IT, however is in the kill box. Why correct someone's behavior or train them, when it's so much easier to just fire people. Hell, they're probably mostly contractors to begin with, so they're about as disposable as a paper towel.
Please note: not every IT problem is caused by chair moisteners out in the cube farm. Recently our IT department lost our source control server. As in it's gone. As in there were no backups. As in the source of our flagship product just went in the bit bucket. Fortunately we were able to reconstruct from local copies on people's machines, but there's really no excuse for that sort of thing. This is one case where IT being highly visible is a symptom of the problem, which is gross incompetence in IT.
A government regulation requiring a company to do something? Socialism! Communism! Totalitarian oppression! Kenya! Benghazi! Birth certificate! Secret gay marriage! Cold dead hands!
(all of the previous have been seriously argued by certain elements in the American Right.)
Well is that so bad? If an end user is not doing what they're supposed to, and it impacts security, they should be fired.
*wakes up*
Oh, you mean IT folks getting fired for the consequences of a bad management decision made without their input. What was I thinking, firing people for gross violations of IT policy allows the terrorists to win.
End users:
Got PCI scope on a machine, and put the password on a sticky note in a public area? Oh well, everyone makes mistakes.
Stored PII on a laptop that is subsequently stolen? Don't worry about it.
Borrowed your boss' password so you can access documents you're not authorized to see? Well, it saved your boss five minutes, so I guess it's OK.
Tampered with the antivirus? It does make everything slow, doesn't it.
IT:
An end user complained because you wouldn't let them install malware-riddled crap on their machine? YOU'RE FIRED!
The printer that needed to be replaced 20 years ago broke down again? Incompetent idiot! YOU'RE FIRED!
CEO wanted to set his never-expiring to password to "password" and you suggested a more secure string? Arrogant twit! YOU'RE FIRED!
Security drill exposes embarrassingly bad policy breaches among upper management? Obviously you're trying to make them look bad because you're jealous of their success. YOU'RE FIRED!
Seems like no department suffers from the "make 1 person do 4 jobs" phenomenon like IT does. Oddly enough, they don't pay you four salaries..
Can you imagine the horror show that would result from inadequate oversight? We insist on using for-profit companies to build our nuclear reactors - companies who make more money the more corners they cut. Companies whose management is not answerable to the people in any way. Companies that won't develop contingency plans because it's "too expensive", and without proper regulation there are no consequences.
We have a private company operating our water service here. They're awful. They have a stranglehold on the distribution infrastructure, so they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, legal or not. They cut corners and we had an 11-day boil order as a result. One of their managers was convicted of a crime and went to prison for tampering with water samples to make them appear cleaner than the water actually was. And that's just the stuff we know about. They probably get away with that kind of thing all the time; after all, it's only a crime if you get caught.
So, in short, private industry can't be trusted to build and operate the plants safely, and there would be Tea Party rioting in the streets if any of the plants were nationalized. These make nuclear power not viable in the USA. As far as environmental impact goes, the waste generated by producing solar panels doesn't require storage by the lowest bidder and isn't radioactive for thousands of years.
In fairness, security is frequently hampered by management that refuses to understand how critical infosec is. The Home Depot hack? Take a look at this:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-18/home-depot-hacked-wide-open
Security staff had urged that a feature of their malware protection systems be turned on, for months.
As it turns out, that manager was a criminal: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/09/home-depots-former-security-architect-had-history-of-techno-sabotage/ He's also the source of the infamous "We sell hammers" quote. So management was not only deliberately hindering security measures, they had a manager who eventually got convicted for deliberately destroying equipment and data at a previous job. It doesn't appear that HD fired him when the accusations came to light.