Because every time IPV6 comes up, people say "you won't need a firewall", which I've always assumed to be crap, and which is why I put "supposedly".
Because my reaction is always "no way I'm running without a firewall".
I still think the "no NAT" thing is stupid. I don't want devices with a globally unique ID, because the marketing assholes any everybody else don't need to know "this is Bob's fridge".
It's not specifically about fridges, but it points to the widespread terrible security practices, and how a single vendor who makes the underlying stuff can basically destroy security for all of it.
As you add more and more stuff with the same vulnerabilities, the scope of the problem just gets magnified.
So, your internet connected CCTV, your smart TV, your notional smart fridge, and from the sounds of it possibly even your router... these are all subject to vulnerability through their weakest links. And it sounds like there's a lot of weak links.
As long as these companies have a culture of lax security and other terrible practices like this, this problem isn't going to go away.
Once you have IPV6, with no (supposed) need for firewalls, everything connected to the interweb, and widespread terrible security... I predict your fridge will be hacked as quickly as an unpatched Windows XP box hooked up to the internet.
People will try to have anything, and when the device manufacturers are this slack about security, it will get hacked simply because it's there.
I've always thought the internet connected fridge was a stupid idea, for these exact reasons.
With the laundry list of terrible security in the summary, you pretty much have to assume most things are fairly vulnerable.
What of the folks that purchased these chips for these specific instructions?
Same as happens to all early adopters -- the feature may or may not work, and even if it does, there's no guarantee it will be supported (or the same) in the next version.
This is a pretty big 'errata', which is an awesome marketing speak for "really bad QA".
They only seem interested in doing whatever the lobbyists who line their pockets tell them to do.
Hey, if corporations are people, and money is speech, they're only listening to their constituents.
If you want to be listened to, you will need more money.
You expect what you want to matter any if you don't have any cash to back it up? Sorry, no money, no speech -- it's the American way now, SCOTUS said so.
Why are you against free(*) speech? Democracy doesn't grow on trees you know.
(*) Free as in "go ahead if you have the resources to afford it".
Amazing how often what they say contradicts what they actually do.
Republicans are as much about red tape and regulation as anybody else -- the only difference is what they think they should be free from regulation, and what they feel they should be able to impose on others through regulation.
They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.
but I thought the human resources department reads and is capable of evaluating the resumes. Then who evaluates the resumes?
In my experience, HR sifts through for the appropriate set of buzzwords, and then sends a stack of resumes to someone -- who then looks at the stack and laments there are no qualified candidates.
For technical jobs, HR is seldom qualified to understand what is actually being sought, they they go exclusively from the buzzwords.
I believe the modern next step is to then see if you can get an H1B candidate, because it looks as if nobody with the appropriate skills applied.
Which, you would think, would solve the problem of import of the cocaine and export of the money.
Of course, the problem becomes when you suddenly start finding CEOs and politicians jetting off to the Caymans with suitcases full of money they haven't declared.
Um... Because, while not rocket science, good software and human-interface design is often hard?
With the corollary that most organizations don't see it as a value proposition, and just want it up and running as quickly as possible.
So you get a half-assed solution due to minimum resources thrown at it, and a low perceived ROI.
If your first interaction with a company is a shitty, poorly designed tool which makes no sense -- you can bet there will be numerous others within the company.
I have often found the processes and tools used by the HR and Finance people are the most arcane, pointless, and quite often useless tools you can imagine -- and they're curated by people who are rigid, inflexible, and can't grasp when their tool is inadequate for the job.
I have seen lots of tools which do not actually cover the breadth of the reality for which they're used. Something is either an apple or an orange, but you've got a coconut in your hand, and the system doesn't know anything about coconuts, and the people who run it don't care about coconuts. The coconut is your damned problem.
They just keep acting like their system is useful and mandatory.
And then it gets really fun when you need to use several useless tools to enter the same information so that another department can get it the way they insist on it.
My wife enters her time into no less than 4 different tracking systems, all used by different departments for different purposes.
And copyright and patent can be used due to the cost in time and money of even fighting even bogus charges.
No, not even a little.
Do you think you can copyright a single word in the English language you didn't make up? Do you think you can patent a word??
If you brought court challenges saying you'd copyrighted use of "the" or patented using an article in a sentence, and judge who didn't immediately dismiss your case, with prejudice and legal fees, should immediately be disbarred for being incompetent.
There are meanings to copyright and patent, and a single word, even when used as a product name, will NEVER meet those.
If they ever did, the legal system is broken beyond repair.
A real free market is a theoretical extreme, like an ideal gas. It's useful for reasoning about things, but doesn't actually exist in any practical form in real life.
And yet, a large amount of politicians continue to act like this is what we should be striving for.
Which leads me to conclude the people who unabashedly are proponents of a pure laissez faire market are either lying to us, have no actual understanding of this, or somehow think all of these terrible outcomes are actually a good thing.
It makes a good sound bite for the electorate, but it's a shitty basis on which to make policy.
Online job application systems aren't intended to find good candidates.
They're designed to allow HR and recruiters to select the specific set of buzzwords they're looking for but have no understanding of, all while doing the minimum amount of work and the least amount of understanding.
You don't really think HR reads and is capable of evaluating all of those resumes, do you?
Being fascist dickwads certainly isn't helping things
Find me one Western government that isn't trending in this direction. If you think that most of them aren't moving that way, you haven't been paying attention.
The difference is really only in why you tell people you're doing this stuff, not that you're doing this stuff.
You don't think America would deploy terror cams at the drop of a hat? If you don't, you're sadly deluded.
The difference being, they'll tell people it's for their own safety, and people will eat the shit and smile.
Certainly, not all Muslims... I know many who are nice and normal and sane. I suspect the majority of them are, just like everybody else is.
But if you think a 7 year old holding a severed head and posing for a photo is anything but desensitized to violence then I'd love to know what you consider 'normal'.
The extremists have taken barbarism and disregard for life to some pretty disgusting levels.
I'm betting you take the average happy, well adjusted child and show them a severed head, and they won't be posing for pictures.
I can pretty much guarantee I'd faint, hurl, or any number of things. Posing for a picture would not be one of them.
To help them put it into perspective, a "free market" means that the players in the market are free to screw over each other and their customers as much as they want.
And while many politicians apparently seem to think that's an ideal outcome, it's a terrible situation for everybody else.
Case in point: poisoned baby formula from China with melamine in it.
The free market people say "you are free to not buy toxic products for your children". The rest of the world says "no, you're an idiot, it needs to be illegal to do this".
The assumptions about people making rational choices based on perfect information are complete garbage, because people provably are not rational, and someone will always decide his profits are worth killing a few people for.
that only exists with a moderate amount of regulation to prevent the established players from stomping or buying out the competition
No, over time, the terrible behavior of the actors involved demonstrates more and more places in which you need regulation.
The notion you can come up with a skeleton set of regulations only designed to ensure competition, and have that in the long term come up with good outcomes -- well, that's the lie perpetuated by people who say the free market solves problems.
The free market solves one problem: maximizing selfish behavior of some players to the severe detriment of others.
Pretty much anything they do these days, seemingly.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 2
Well, it is no longer about driving creation, it's about corporate profits.
Has been ever since the Sonny Bono and Disney Corporate Copyright Extortion Act, because copyrighted things under corporate ownership is 25 years longer than you and I would enjoy.
This is rent seeking, entrenched in law, and treated as a natural right of corporations. This is much more about guaranteeing shareholder value and executive bonuses than driving any form of creativity.
Perhaps the reverse is true, and the already weakened ice was more affected? Perhaps Chile is geographically close to Antarctica?
When was the last time we had a magnitude 8.8 quake in Chile to compare against?
I don't think this earthquake says anything against global warming.
Unless all ice fractures in Antarctica are caused by earthquakes elsewhere, you can't say that no ice fractures in Antarctica were caused by global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Because every time IPV6 comes up, people say "you won't need a firewall", which I've always assumed to be crap, and which is why I put "supposedly".
Because my reaction is always "no way I'm running without a firewall".
I still think the "no NAT" thing is stupid. I don't want devices with a globally unique ID, because the marketing assholes any everybody else don't need to know "this is Bob's fridge".
It's not specifically about fridges, but it points to the widespread terrible security practices, and how a single vendor who makes the underlying stuff can basically destroy security for all of it.
As you add more and more stuff with the same vulnerabilities, the scope of the problem just gets magnified.
So, your internet connected CCTV, your smart TV, your notional smart fridge, and from the sounds of it possibly even your router ... these are all subject to vulnerability through their weakest links. And it sounds like there's a lot of weak links.
As long as these companies have a culture of lax security and other terrible practices like this, this problem isn't going to go away.
Once you have IPV6, with no (supposed) need for firewalls, everything connected to the interweb, and widespread terrible security ... I predict your fridge will be hacked as quickly as an unpatched Windows XP box hooked up to the internet.
People will try to have anything, and when the device manufacturers are this slack about security, it will get hacked simply because it's there.
I've always thought the internet connected fridge was a stupid idea, for these exact reasons.
With the laundry list of terrible security in the summary, you pretty much have to assume most things are fairly vulnerable.
Same as happens to all early adopters -- the feature may or may not work, and even if it does, there's no guarantee it will be supported (or the same) in the next version.
This is a pretty big 'errata', which is an awesome marketing speak for "really bad QA".
Engineers Release Really Awful Tech. Awesome!
Chips don't add?
Transactions don't sync?
Don't be sad,
don't be a dink.
Burma Shave!!
Hey, if corporations are people, and money is speech, they're only listening to their constituents.
If you want to be listened to, you will need more money.
You expect what you want to matter any if you don't have any cash to back it up? Sorry, no money, no speech -- it's the American way now, SCOTUS said so.
Why are you against free(*) speech? Democracy doesn't grow on trees you know.
(*) Free as in "go ahead if you have the resources to afford it".
Amazing how often what they say contradicts what they actually do.
Republicans are as much about red tape and regulation as anybody else -- the only difference is what they think they should be free from regulation, and what they feel they should be able to impose on others through regulation.
They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.
In my experience, HR sifts through for the appropriate set of buzzwords, and then sends a stack of resumes to someone -- who then looks at the stack and laments there are no qualified candidates.
For technical jobs, HR is seldom qualified to understand what is actually being sought, they they go exclusively from the buzzwords.
I believe the modern next step is to then see if you can get an H1B candidate, because it looks as if nobody with the appropriate skills applied.
Which, you would think, would solve the problem of import of the cocaine and export of the money.
Of course, the problem becomes when you suddenly start finding CEOs and politicians jetting off to the Caymans with suitcases full of money they haven't declared.
Despair, irony, and a touch of vermouth.
With the corollary that most organizations don't see it as a value proposition, and just want it up and running as quickly as possible.
So you get a half-assed solution due to minimum resources thrown at it, and a low perceived ROI.
If your first interaction with a company is a shitty, poorly designed tool which makes no sense -- you can bet there will be numerous others within the company.
I have often found the processes and tools used by the HR and Finance people are the most arcane, pointless, and quite often useless tools you can imagine -- and they're curated by people who are rigid, inflexible, and can't grasp when their tool is inadequate for the job.
I have seen lots of tools which do not actually cover the breadth of the reality for which they're used. Something is either an apple or an orange, but you've got a coconut in your hand, and the system doesn't know anything about coconuts, and the people who run it don't care about coconuts. The coconut is your damned problem.
They just keep acting like their system is useful and mandatory.
And then it gets really fun when you need to use several useless tools to enter the same information so that another department can get it the way they insist on it.
My wife enters her time into no less than 4 different tracking systems, all used by different departments for different purposes.
No, not even a little.
Do you think you can copyright a single word in the English language you didn't make up? Do you think you can patent a word??
If you brought court challenges saying you'd copyrighted use of "the" or patented using an article in a sentence, and judge who didn't immediately dismiss your case, with prejudice and legal fees, should immediately be disbarred for being incompetent.
There are meanings to copyright and patent, and a single word, even when used as a product name, will NEVER meet those.
If they ever did, the legal system is broken beyond repair.
And yet, a large amount of politicians continue to act like this is what we should be striving for.
Which leads me to conclude the people who unabashedly are proponents of a pure laissez faire market are either lying to us, have no actual understanding of this, or somehow think all of these terrible outcomes are actually a good thing.
It makes a good sound bite for the electorate, but it's a shitty basis on which to make policy.
Online job application systems aren't intended to find good candidates.
They're designed to allow HR and recruiters to select the specific set of buzzwords they're looking for but have no understanding of, all while doing the minimum amount of work and the least amount of understanding.
You don't really think HR reads and is capable of evaluating all of those resumes, do you?
Find me one Western government that isn't trending in this direction. If you think that most of them aren't moving that way, you haven't been paying attention.
The difference is really only in why you tell people you're doing this stuff, not that you're doing this stuff.
You don't think America would deploy terror cams at the drop of a hat? If you don't, you're sadly deluded.
The difference being, they'll tell people it's for their own safety, and people will eat the shit and smile.
Certainly, not all Muslims ... I know many who are nice and normal and sane. I suspect the majority of them are, just like everybody else is.
But if you think a 7 year old holding a severed head and posing for a photo is anything but desensitized to violence then I'd love to know what you consider 'normal'.
The extremists have taken barbarism and disregard for life to some pretty disgusting levels.
I'm betting you take the average happy, well adjusted child and show them a severed head, and they won't be posing for pictures.
I can pretty much guarantee I'd faint, hurl, or any number of things. Posing for a picture would not be one of them.
And while many politicians apparently seem to think that's an ideal outcome, it's a terrible situation for everybody else.
Case in point: poisoned baby formula from China with melamine in it.
The free market people say "you are free to not buy toxic products for your children". The rest of the world says "no, you're an idiot, it needs to be illegal to do this".
The assumptions about people making rational choices based on perfect information are complete garbage, because people provably are not rational, and someone will always decide his profits are worth killing a few people for.
No, over time, the terrible behavior of the actors involved demonstrates more and more places in which you need regulation.
The notion you can come up with a skeleton set of regulations only designed to ensure competition, and have that in the long term come up with good outcomes -- well, that's the lie perpetuated by people who say the free market solves problems.
The free market solves one problem: maximizing selfish behavior of some players to the severe detriment of others.
Only trademark applies here ... copyright and patent are for entirely different things, and trademark only applies in the specific area of business.
And, to counter your point, I offer you Windows and Word. It's not like it's never happened.
There are not 'normal free markets', they simply don't exist.
Sooner or later they devolve into this, or people selling outright fradulent/dangerous products, or they form cartels to screw over the consumer.
Left to its own devices, a free market becomes anything but. It's a complete myth that it will arrive at perfect outcomes, and it always has been.
Adam Smith knew this when he wrote Wealth of Nations.
Pretty much anything they do these days, seemingly.
Well, it is no longer about driving creation, it's about corporate profits.
Has been ever since the Sonny Bono and Disney Corporate Copyright Extortion Act, because copyrighted things under corporate ownership is 25 years longer than you and I would enjoy.
This is rent seeking, entrenched in law, and treated as a natural right of corporations. This is much more about guaranteeing shareholder value and executive bonuses than driving any form of creativity.
And what I like to call "the ever expanding surveillance state".
It boils down to "fuck it, collect everything, from anywhere, without warrant or oversight, and figure out if you have anything interesting later".
Kind of the opposite of the 4th amendment it seems.
Perhaps the reverse is true, and the already weakened ice was more affected? Perhaps Chile is geographically close to Antarctica?
When was the last time we had a magnitude 8.8 quake in Chile to compare against?
I don't think this earthquake says anything against global warming.
Unless all ice fractures in Antarctica are caused by earthquakes elsewhere, you can't say that no ice fractures in Antarctica were caused by global warming.
So, make a billion smaller spiders around a cubic liter ... do I have to think of everything?
Only if it began with "Attention people of Earth" ...