Since I have a colocated server in a different jurisdiction that serves one purpose -- to act as a VPN end-point. Every connection I make from outside my home is visible only as an encrypted L2TP over IPSec packet.
Monitor away.
And for those who don't want to go to the lengths and expenses of colocating your own server, there are several inexpensive VPN services that offer the same thing.
Because even though Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%, it is always all the OTHER members who are causing the problem. Not MY Congressman/Senator. At least, that seems to be the way the voting goes.
The deck is stacked in favor of incumbents. In both Houses -- at least in the United States -- power comes from which committees you are on or Chair. Those are divvied up by seniority. The longer you are in, the more power you have.
That is a big selling point during a campaign. "Sure, I'm scum. But I bring home the bacon and I've been in long enough that I get my voice -- your voice -- heard. Vote me out and it'll take decades before any real projects come back to this district."
The SEC guidance never says â potential attackâ. It talks about making sure companies include potential cyber security incidents as part of their risk assessment.
The rest refers to successful incidents and attacks that result in material financial cost or loss. This was written by the finance guys. They aren't interested in your firewall logs. They wasn't to make sure a company takes this stuff into account when reporting material risk.
Potentially attacked means an incident occurred, but you aren't sure if it is a specific, targeted attack or just an incident of random infection.
And yes, they do disclose this on their annual FISMA filings. You will also see the information in the annual Inspector General reports filed with Congress on every agency.
This idea was discussed in a meeting with the various CxOs yesterday, where I work. While the recent Blackberry outage brought this to everyone's attention, the big kicker is people don't like carrying two phones.
In government, really only RIM has gone thru FIPS compliance testing and that is one of the big reasons they are so popular. Our CIO brought up that Apple has been taking the iPhone thru FIPS compliance testing and he was looking forward to being able to get an iPhone instead of the Blackberry.
That is until I pointed out the only way it'll pass compliance is if the iTunes Store is disabled and you can't load any apps on the phone. Did he want an iPhone with only the default Apple apps? "Uh, no." was the answer. And neither will anyone else.
Being able to have one phone is the key. This could be an interesting step in that direction.
Well, that should be fairly simple now. Point to the circuit failure and explain that is what you're talking about.
Do it in writing (e-mail), so if someone above him screams at you, you can say "I expressed my concern but it was judged to be an acceptable risk by the powers-that-be."
I understand the problem you have. I've just resigned myself to the security mentality of "my job isn't make the decisions, it is to make sure the people who make the decisions have the best information". It means I get to say "I told you so" quite a bit.
Uhh...not to nitpick, but that is what backup MX servers are for. When your primary server is not available, mail is delivered to one of the others. If your e-mail is that critical then you need to have a store-and-forward server somewhere else, just in case your link goes down.
There are lots of services that provide this, if you don't want to do it yourself. But setting up a simple store-and-forward server isn't all that complicated and doesn't need a full Exchange deployment.
So compare the Samsung Thrive ($399 for 16 Gb) and the Asus Transformer ($399 for 16 Gb) and go from there. You can always buy the dock later, if you think you want it. With the Samsung, you don't have that option.
As a plain tablet the Transformer is as good as they get, quality-wise, for Android tablets. I don't know about the Samsung, not having held it in my hand.
If it was only 50 it would be trivial to implement. The problem is most States allow individual counties to collect an additional percentage. There are 3,077 counties in the United States, according to Wikipedia. On top of that, many municipalities also have the option of collecting an additional sales tax.
Add in that sales taxes vary depending on the type of item purchased, and in some cases county/city surtaxes are limited by the dollar amount of the purchase, and you end up with one hell of a convoluted mess if you deal nationwide.
Sorry, not quite. I can afford it and chose differently. My Asus T101 Transformer is a better device. I have an iPad2 at work, but I chose the Transformer when spending my own money and am happier with it than the iPad.
The ability to drop it into the keyboard and have the USB ports, full SDHC slot and extra battery is fantastic. I can actually type when I want to type. Then I can just pull it out and take the tablet with me when I head out. That is a major plus that a BlueTooth keyboard just doesn't match.
Whereas Apple is relying on their lock-in to the "we get a cut of the action, see" iTunes store. It is a tried and true method. For further reference, see cell phones and how they are subsidized by carriers.
And Amazon is selling the Fire at a loss of what, $10?
Face it, every society on Earth short of pure anarchy is one form of socialism or another. The only difference is in degrees.
Yes, I will happily argue that there are benefits to a society deciding that some services should be provided to the whole and supported by taxes. History will bear out that the near universal availability of electricity, telecommunications and transportation infrastructure (roads) has greatly benefited our society as a whole.
You do understand that one of the concessions given to AT&T for mandating tariffed services was a guaranteed monopoly in those areas, right?
I'm not suggesting this is bad. The capital costs of deploying services like these to rural areas can be prohibitive. The monopoly guarantee allows the carrier to amortize the cost over a long term without fear of losing money.
Though today the inflation-adjusted costs should be lower because of the viability of wireless communications means many fewer miles of buried or strung wire, which is an expensive process.
Reduce the term of copyright back to the original lengths when the United States was founded. That is, 14 years plus a 14 year extension if applied for.
Yes, you must actually APPLY for the extension. The point was if you were unwilling to make even that minimal effort then it wasn't worth granting you the exclusivity.
As far as duration... Back in 1800 if you wrote a book and made money it could easily take you YEARS to get it all around the country. Fully exploiting your creative work was a time consuming process.
Today, however, we see popular works like the Harry Potter series sell millions of copies in MINUTES. In less than a week it has spread around the entire world. The first book was published in 1997. The movie from that book in 2001 and the DVD in 2002. Five years. They now have 23 left to coast on royalties, licensing and residual sales.
What about the every day works, you ask? Putting it bluntly, 28 years is long enough. The purpose of copyright in the United States is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
limited times to authors and inventors. Not their descendants or heirs. Not the cadre of middle-men, lawyers and hangers-on. The actual artists themselves.
In short, strong copyright YES, long copyright NO.
What browser are you using that supports TLS 1.1 or 1.2? IE 8 doesn't. I don't know about 9. Firefox doesn't -- it depends on OpenSSL and the release version of that product doesn't support TLS > 1.0.
Encrypted connections can't be cached by a proxy, unless the proxy acts as a man-in-the-middle. While this is popular at many companies, I don't see a lot of support for your ISP doing it.
SSL Everywhere, if successful, will be the death of caching. Is that a good thing?
The writers of the Constitution had to deal with non-state entities threatening the United States on a regular basis. Piracy in that era was rampant and serious. Nor was it the single-ship group of bad actors that many people picture today. The larger pirate groups commanded fleets of dozens of ships.
In some cases they were backed by nations. That is what led to the First and Second Barbary Wars. All of which is a moot point because I wasn't addressing the general military actions of using drone, missile strikes and the like against Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
I was addressing the one specific case of authorizing and carrying out the execution of an American citizen without trial or due process. (Note -- Trial In Absentia is illegal in the United States and has been addressed by the Supreme Court already.)
If you can demonstrate that the two American citizens killed by the latest attack were connected to the 9/11 attacks, then it covers it. (No, just being a member of AQAP doesn't cut it. AQAP didn't exist until well after 9/11/2001.)
However, that isn't carte blanche for extra judicial killings of American citizens.
Al-Awlaki was suspected to have been a contact and "spiritual leader" to a couple of the 9/11 hijackers, though he claimed the attack was a perversion of Islam and no true Muslim could have committed it. He wasn't above lying his ass off.
There is a tenuous connection, and they might be able to slip this through. But the idea of allowing the government to simply assassinate a citizen without trial regardless of his actions is something that should be examined very, very closely.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I have a colocated server in a different jurisdiction that serves one purpose -- to act as a VPN end-point. Every connection I make from outside my home is visible only as an encrypted L2TP over IPSec packet.
Monitor away.
And for those who don't want to go to the lengths and expenses of colocating your own server, there are several inexpensive VPN services that offer the same thing.
Yes. I should have been clearer. I don't disagree with you, I was just adding to your post.
There is even a relevant episode of South Park. Something about changing the world by holding music festivals. :-)
Because even though Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%, it is always all the OTHER members who are causing the problem. Not MY Congressman/Senator. At least, that seems to be the way the voting goes.
The deck is stacked in favor of incumbents. In both Houses -- at least in the United States -- power comes from which committees you are on or Chair. Those are divvied up by seniority. The longer you are in, the more power you have.
That is a big selling point during a campaign. "Sure, I'm scum. But I bring home the bacon and I've been in long enough that I get my voice -- your voice -- heard. Vote me out and it'll take decades before any real projects come back to this district."
The SEC guidance never says â potential attackâ. It talks about making sure companies include potential cyber security incidents as part of their risk assessment.
The rest refers to successful incidents and attacks that result in material financial cost or loss. This was written by the finance guys. They aren't interested in your firewall logs. They wasn't to make sure a company takes this stuff into account when reporting material risk.
Read the actual document.
Technically, those are the same thing.
Potentially attacked means an incident occurred, but you aren't sure if it is a specific, targeted attack or just an incident of random infection.
And yes, they do disclose this on their annual FISMA filings. You will also see the information in the annual Inspector General reports filed with Congress on every agency.
If the bank is a public company, then yes.
I used to have the same opinion about the keyboard until I got used to Swype. I'm much faster and more accurate using that. Give it a try.
This idea was discussed in a meeting with the various CxOs yesterday, where I work. While the recent Blackberry outage brought this to everyone's attention, the big kicker is people don't like carrying two phones.
In government, really only RIM has gone thru FIPS compliance testing and that is one of the big reasons they are so popular. Our CIO brought up that Apple has been taking the iPhone thru FIPS compliance testing and he was looking forward to being able to get an iPhone instead of the Blackberry.
That is until I pointed out the only way it'll pass compliance is if the iTunes Store is disabled and you can't load any apps on the phone. Did he want an iPhone with only the default Apple apps? "Uh, no." was the answer. And neither will anyone else.
Being able to have one phone is the key. This could be an interesting step in that direction.
Well, that should be fairly simple now. Point to the circuit failure and explain that is what you're talking about.
Do it in writing (e-mail), so if someone above him screams at you, you can say "I expressed my concern but it was judged to be an acceptable risk by the powers-that-be."
I understand the problem you have. I've just resigned myself to the security mentality of "my job isn't make the decisions, it is to make sure the people who make the decisions have the best information". It means I get to say "I told you so" quite a bit.
Uhh...not to nitpick, but that is what backup MX servers are for. When your primary server is not available, mail is delivered to one of the others. If your e-mail is that critical then you need to have a store-and-forward server somewhere else, just in case your link goes down.
There are lots of services that provide this, if you don't want to do it yourself. But setting up a simple store-and-forward server isn't all that complicated and doesn't need a full Exchange deployment.
So compare the Samsung Thrive ($399 for 16 Gb) and the Asus Transformer ($399 for 16 Gb) and go from there. You can always buy the dock later, if you think you want it. With the Samsung, you don't have that option.
As a plain tablet the Transformer is as good as they get, quality-wise, for Android tablets. I don't know about the Samsung, not having held it in my hand.
If it was only 50 it would be trivial to implement. The problem is most States allow individual counties to collect an additional percentage. There are 3,077 counties in the United States, according to Wikipedia. On top of that, many municipalities also have the option of collecting an additional sales tax.
Add in that sales taxes vary depending on the type of item purchased, and in some cases county/city surtaxes are limited by the dollar amount of the purchase, and you end up with one hell of a convoluted mess if you deal nationwide.
For details see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States
Sorry, not quite. I can afford it and chose differently. My Asus T101 Transformer is a better device. I have an iPad2 at work, but I chose the Transformer when spending my own money and am happier with it than the iPad.
The ability to drop it into the keyboard and have the USB ports, full SDHC slot and extra battery is fantastic. I can actually type when I want to type. Then I can just pull it out and take the tablet with me when I head out. That is a major plus that a BlueTooth keyboard just doesn't match.
Whereas Apple is relying on their lock-in to the "we get a cut of the action, see" iTunes store. It is a tried and true method. For further reference, see cell phones and how they are subsidized by carriers.
And Amazon is selling the Fire at a loss of what, $10?
Face it, every society on Earth short of pure anarchy is one form of socialism or another. The only difference is in degrees.
Yes, I will happily argue that there are benefits to a society deciding that some services should be provided to the whole and supported by taxes. History will bear out that the near universal availability of electricity, telecommunications and transportation infrastructure (roads) has greatly benefited our society as a whole.
Where's Billy Mays when you need him? Is there anything graphene can't do? It is starting to sound like the Sham-Wow of materials science.
You do understand that one of the concessions given to AT&T for mandating tariffed services was a guaranteed monopoly in those areas, right?
I'm not suggesting this is bad. The capital costs of deploying services like these to rural areas can be prohibitive. The monopoly guarantee allows the carrier to amortize the cost over a long term without fear of losing money.
Though today the inflation-adjusted costs should be lower because of the viability of wireless communications means many fewer miles of buried or strung wire, which is an expensive process.
Okay, here goes...
Reduce the term of copyright back to the original lengths when the United States was founded. That is, 14 years plus a 14 year extension if applied for.
Yes, you must actually APPLY for the extension. The point was if you were unwilling to make even that minimal effort then it wasn't worth granting you the exclusivity.
As far as duration... Back in 1800 if you wrote a book and made money it could easily take you YEARS to get it all around the country. Fully exploiting your creative work was a time consuming process.
Today, however, we see popular works like the Harry Potter series sell millions of copies in MINUTES. In less than a week it has spread around the entire world. The first book was published in 1997. The movie from that book in 2001 and the DVD in 2002. Five years. They now have 23 left to coast on royalties, licensing and residual sales.
What about the every day works, you ask? Putting it bluntly, 28 years is long enough. The purpose of copyright in the United States is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
limited times to authors and inventors. Not their descendants or heirs. Not the cadre of middle-men, lawyers and hangers-on. The actual artists themselves.
In short, strong copyright YES, long copyright NO.
Chicken, meet egg.
What browser are you using that supports TLS 1.1 or 1.2? IE 8 doesn't. I don't know about 9. Firefox doesn't -- it depends on OpenSSL and the release version of that product doesn't support TLS > 1.0.
Encrypted connections can't be cached by a proxy, unless the proxy acts as a man-in-the-middle. While this is popular at many companies, I don't see a lot of support for your ISP doing it.
SSL Everywhere, if successful, will be the death of caching. Is that a good thing?
The writers of the Constitution had to deal with non-state entities threatening the United States on a regular basis. Piracy in that era was rampant and serious. Nor was it the single-ship group of bad actors that many people picture today. The larger pirate groups commanded fleets of dozens of ships.
In some cases they were backed by nations. That is what led to the First and Second Barbary Wars. All of which is a moot point because I wasn't addressing the general military actions of using drone, missile strikes and the like against Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
I was addressing the one specific case of authorizing and carrying out the execution of an American citizen without trial or due process. (Note -- Trial In Absentia is illegal in the United States and has been addressed by the Supreme Court already.)
So, you're saying we should set the Constitution aside because it is HARD?
Read your post again. That is what it sums up to. "We could, but it is HARD and DANGEROUS."
I'm sorry. I don't accept that as a viable answer.
There is, however, ample history and precedent for dealing with terrorist organizations. For example, ETA, Red Brigades, IRA, FARC, Mafia and others.
For one example, the RICO Act came from dealing with these sorts of problems. That is what Al-Qaeda is -- organized criminals.
A criminal organization is a criminal organization. Saying they "declare war" is just a publicity stunt and a case of an over-inflated ego.
If you can demonstrate that the two American citizens killed by the latest attack were connected to the 9/11 attacks, then it covers it. (No, just being a member of AQAP doesn't cut it. AQAP didn't exist until well after 9/11/2001.)
However, that isn't carte blanche for extra judicial killings of American citizens.
Al-Awlaki was suspected to have been a contact and "spiritual leader" to a couple of the 9/11 hijackers, though he claimed the attack was a perversion of Islam and no true Muslim could have committed it. He wasn't above lying his ass off.
There is a tenuous connection, and they might be able to slip this through. But the idea of allowing the government to simply assassinate a citizen without trial regardless of his actions is something that should be examined very, very closely.