So what you are saying is ignore those that may be able to learn at a different pace, make them go into a regular stream.... bore the living daylights out of them....
Not everyone learns at the same pace, not everyone learns the same way. If you gear an educational system to the lowest common denominator, you will end up with a country of underachievers and an economy that is floundering.
I had a mix of "accelerated" and "regular" classes -- the slower the course was the worse my marks became and the more disruptive I became.... The more interesting it became, the more I was engaged. I also remember even early on I had one science teacher that had the course material prepared for the whole year and allowed students to get ahead if they wanted.... I finished the material in about 2 months at most..... then I became bored and disruptive.
Gifted BTW is a mislabeling of reality. You can have students that would be "gifted" -- but are limited by their parents.... School system is riddled with children that are dumped into it by their parents who have handicapped their children by their actions which then the school system has to gear to the lowest common denominator and the rest of the children suffer because of negligent parenting.
The program is likely more accelerated or "deep diving" into subjects than "gifted" for students that would otherwise get bored in a program because it is going too slowly. The problem is likely less to do with the program and more to do with the children's home life and parents. If you have parents that have a generally higher education, or interact more with their children at a younger age.... then the child is likely to be more likely to be suited for the accelerated programs later. Therefore targeting the program as the source of the problem is likely targeting the symptom rather than the problem.
I see this as a wider problem, not just with managers.
It is no different than the problem I have seen with many developers/programmers who are unwilling to learn (to the point of fighting it) the business that they are developing software for. Most developers develop software for some business other than for other developers and refusing to educate yourself about the business that you are developing for limits the usefulness of those resources.
Similarly, Managers managing technical people should learn what they are managing - though they don't necessarily have to worry about the details of it. Of course the smaller the company the more knowledge technically that manager should have since there is less room for specialization.
I remember the palm pilot - and yes the use as stylus as the primary input device drove most who used those devices nuts. I doubt Steve Jobs ever was really against the stylus for use as what it was designed for -- drawing / diagramming etc. -- just not as the primary input device as the device - or having multiple confusing inputs where sometimes you use x and sometimes you use y (something Microsoft is famous for). I would love a good stylus with an iPad - but really only for electronic Whiteboard stuff etc (existing stylus / iPad is not that great -- in fact down right annoying).
They are "professionals" and the only reason why they have goofed (more than once) is because of passive aggressive pushback at being told to use MS Surface products.
And most of the programmers I know that are not tied to the Microsoft development environment. A company I worked for gave its consultants (mostly programmers) the option of sticking with Windows work machines or getting Apple / "OS X" devices..... and most went with "OS X", some went with Linux, and a minority stayed with Windows (less than 10%).
iPad Pro is a touch first and foremost device. The keyboard is more of an afterthought and used for data heavy input (i.e. document creation), but for most tasks the keyboard should not be an advantage.
The Surface comes at it the opposite way - it is primarily a computer that can be used in a tablet sort of way.... you would not generally buy it without the keyboard.
Apple focuses more on a device for a given task, while Microsoft is trying to make one device do everything (not necessarily the best). Apple focuses on hand-off between devices when you change which one you are using, Microsoft focuses on you are only going to have one device and it will somehow morph into whatever you want.
I prefer the Apple approach to the Microsoft approach, but there are others where Microsoft would be more suited. (Windows user til 2008; OS X user after 2008).
I have had a non-smart phone before and no.... a simple phone would not work - I would not even buy it.
If I were a little more narcissistic and took more selfies then I might need the space, but there are many people that don't need to load up their phone with their complete life and show it to strangers. There are people that don't take a picture of every little thing - thinking they have to show their friends that they were somewhere. And there are some of us that actually bother to pay attention to people around us rather than hunch over our iPhone and play games while we are with other people. We use it for specific applications, sometimes we even write them ourselves. In fact I don't even use the phone feature that much - if someone wants to call then they know to send me a message first - otherwise don't bother calling.
I am still using an iPhone 4s and have never had a problem with storage since I don't fill it up with millions of games and I don't take lots of photos...
Just because it is not good for you or some people, doesn't mean that the cheaper option should not be available for those that really don't need the space.
I primarily use it for a "modem" link and for getting messages and checking messages and keeping connected....
Corporate level risk decisions like this the final decision has to rest with a C-Level executive. If he is a good manager of course he will get input from other people first then make the decision. The eventuality that the corporation cloud service is hacked or compromised... they will have to answer to the owners or the shareholders anyways.
Personally, I would be extremely wary of allowing any corporate data to be "housed" in a cloud unless they have deep pockets are can be held liable for damages caused by a major breach.
To be classified it does not need to be stamped "classified" -- it is automatically classified by the fact of the source information at the top.
Often in the foreign service you communicate things that would not necessarily be classified - such as talks or communications in confidence with others in power etc. (off the record) -- and this lack of taking security seriously put both them and their lives at risk in some cases. What this teaches the world is that the US cannot be trusted with confidential or classified material and they should stop co-operating with the US on or off the record.
"On Monday, researchers from anti-malware firm Malwarebytes said a new malicious installer is exploiting the vulnerability to surreptitiously infect Macs with several types of adware including VSearch, a variant of the Genieo package, and the MacKeeper junkware. Malwarebytes researcher Adam Thomas stumbled on the exploit after finding the installer modified the sudoers configuration file."
The installer itself has been granted privileges by the operator to install the application to all users. It cannot install itself directly from the browser. It has to be downloaded (and potentially auto-opened) for installation. It either has to be installed maliciously into an application (which is unlikely to be a signed developer).
Subsequent to that installation of the malicious malware, that user that installed the application has been given effective root access WITHOUT requiring passwords on subsequent actions. But until that file is modified, that user does not have sufficient rights, nor do any 3rd party applications have sufficient rights to make changes to that file without user intervention.
The vulnerability is that the installer can make changes to the/etc/sudoers file during installation by use of the DYND_PRINT_TO_FILE.
It is highly unlikely an application that is from a certified/signed developer is going to contain malware in the installer -- possible but not likely. This means social engineering to get the user to download unsigned applications - then go into security settings and allow that installer an exception to start the installation.
Subsequent to the installer changing the sudoers file (which requires user installing the application containing the exploit) -- FURTHER applications or would no longer be asked for password during sudo escalation.
"On Monday, researchers from anti-malware firm Malwarebytes said a new malicious installer is exploiting the vulnerability to surreptitiously infect Macs with several types of adware including VSearch, a variant of the Genieo package, and the MacKeeper junkware. Malwarebytes researcher Adam Thomas stumbled on the exploit after finding the installer modified the sudoers configuration file."
The installer itself has been granted privileges by the operator to install the application to all users. It cannot install itself directly from the browser. It has to be downloaded (and potentially auto-opened) for installation. It either has to be installed maliciously into an application (which is unlikely to be a signed developer) -- or a developer would have to link in external packages into their application that could potentially have the exploit.
/etc/sudoers is already read only by root/wheel..... which of course is no problem to change if you are root (which is what you have to give access to to make the changes in the first place) -- and that requires user intervention to install the malware.
NO, Code execution in a browser CANNOT escalate privileges.... none of those applications have sufficient rights to change the/etc/sudoer file. The user would have to download and install an application from an unknown developer - which is blocked by default. You would then have to go into security settings and say - open up that installer for the application anyways. That installer application would then have sufficient privileges to make changes to the file and give that user root access with no asking of the password in the future. It takes a fair amount of social engineering of stupid users to get to that point.
Most unix admins don't allow anyone root access or the ability to install applications. It only exists in OS X to be user friendly. The exploit is closed in 10.10.5 (currently in beta) .
In El Capitan the security will be rootless by default.
200 ft (2/3 the way down the football field if he shot straight up - 280ft+ if he shot at a 45deg angle).... with birdshot... and downing it.... not likely..... very unlikely... possible? maybe - but the probability is the altitude claimed is false.
No one should be flying drones over other people's property. period. If you think it is ok to fly a drone over other people's property (potentially with cameras with zoom lenses)... may you have children that are spied on by pedaphiles...
Now, if flying a drone over other people's property is not allowed -- shooting over other people's property (unlikely the birdshot will obey property boundaries).... but firing up at a target is highly unlikely to be dangerous to anyone on the ground (see Mythbusters) -- wind resistance would make it annoying at best if hit.
If shooting a drone out of the sky and having it fall on someone is dangerous.... then just flying the drone and potentially crashing it (without shooting it out of the sky) is also dangerous....
If you fine the shooter for shooting it down, then the flyer should also pay a fine as well..... and forget about damages... since he should not have been flying it there anyways.
Democracy is not designed to produce better governance.... just hopefully one that more people have a vested interest and where bloody coups are not needed to change the government when they have become too corrupted to continue. Voters vote for collapsing their economies all the time, and sometimes the government actually co-operate....
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you trying to modify Mail.app or other system files? Files in etc are modifiable - including hosts, fstab etc.
So what you are saying is ignore those that may be able to learn at a different pace, make them go into a regular stream.... bore the living daylights out of them....
Not everyone learns at the same pace, not everyone learns the same way. If you gear an educational system to the lowest common denominator, you will end up with a country of underachievers and an economy that is floundering.
I had a mix of "accelerated" and "regular" classes -- the slower the course was the worse my marks became and the more disruptive I became.... The more interesting it became, the more I was engaged. I also remember even early on I had one science teacher that had the course material prepared for the whole year and allowed students to get ahead if they wanted.... I finished the material in about 2 months at most..... then I became bored and disruptive.
Gifted BTW is a mislabeling of reality. You can have students that would be "gifted" -- but are limited by their parents.... School system is riddled with children that are dumped into it by their parents who have handicapped their children by their actions which then the school system has to gear to the lowest common denominator and the rest of the children suffer because of negligent parenting.
The program is likely more accelerated or "deep diving" into subjects than "gifted" for students that would otherwise get bored in a program because it is going too slowly. The problem is likely less to do with the program and more to do with the children's home life and parents. If you have parents that have a generally higher education, or interact more with their children at a younger age.... then the child is likely to be more likely to be suited for the accelerated programs later. Therefore targeting the program as the source of the problem is likely targeting the symptom rather than the problem.
If an ad is caught doing this the app gets pulled from the app store. Makes the advertising useless.
I see this as a wider problem, not just with managers.
It is no different than the problem I have seen with many developers/programmers who are unwilling to learn (to the point of fighting it) the business that they are developing software for. Most developers develop software for some business other than for other developers and refusing to educate yourself about the business that you are developing for limits the usefulness of those resources.
Similarly, Managers managing technical people should learn what they are managing - though they don't necessarily have to worry about the details of it. Of course the smaller the company the more knowledge technically that manager should have since there is less room for specialization.
I remember the palm pilot - and yes the use as stylus as the primary input device drove most who used those devices nuts. I doubt Steve Jobs ever was really against the stylus for use as what it was designed for -- drawing / diagramming etc. -- just not as the primary input device as the device - or having multiple confusing inputs where sometimes you use x and sometimes you use y (something Microsoft is famous for). I would love a good stylus with an iPad - but really only for electronic Whiteboard stuff etc (existing stylus / iPad is not that great -- in fact down right annoying).
They are "professionals" and the only reason why they have goofed (more than once) is because of passive aggressive pushback at being told to use MS Surface products.
And most of the programmers I know that are not tied to the Microsoft development environment. A company I worked for gave its consultants (mostly programmers) the option of sticking with Windows work machines or getting Apple / "OS X" devices..... and most went with "OS X", some went with Linux, and a minority stayed with Windows (less than 10%).
iPad Pro is a touch first and foremost device. The keyboard is more of an afterthought and used for data heavy input (i.e. document creation), but for most tasks the keyboard should not be an advantage.
The Surface comes at it the opposite way - it is primarily a computer that can be used in a tablet sort of way.... you would not generally buy it without the keyboard.
Apple focuses more on a device for a given task, while Microsoft is trying to make one device do everything (not necessarily the best). Apple focuses on hand-off between devices when you change which one you are using, Microsoft focuses on you are only going to have one device and it will somehow morph into whatever you want.
I prefer the Apple approach to the Microsoft approach, but there are others where Microsoft would be more suited. (Windows user til 2008; OS X user after 2008).
I have had a non-smart phone before and no.... a simple phone would not work - I would not even buy it.
If I were a little more narcissistic and took more selfies then I might need the space, but there are many people that don't need to load up their phone with their complete life and show it to strangers. There are people that don't take a picture of every little thing - thinking they have to show their friends that they were somewhere. And there are some of us that actually bother to pay attention to people around us rather than hunch over our iPhone and play games while we are with other people. We use it for specific applications, sometimes we even write them ourselves. In fact I don't even use the phone feature that much - if someone wants to call then they know to send me a message first - otherwise don't bother calling.
We were talking about the iPhone. I don't use Office on the iPhone.
I am still using an iPhone 4s and have never had a problem with storage since I don't fill it up with millions of games and I don't take lots of photos...
Just because it is not good for you or some people, doesn't mean that the cheaper option should not be available for those that really don't need the space.
I primarily use it for a "modem" link and for getting messages and checking messages and keeping connected....
Corporate level risk decisions like this the final decision has to rest with a C-Level executive. If he is a good manager of course he will get input from other people first then make the decision. The eventuality that the corporation cloud service is hacked or compromised ... they will have to answer to the owners or the shareholders anyways.
Personally, I would be extremely wary of allowing any corporate data to be "housed" in a cloud unless they have deep pockets are can be held liable for damages caused by a major breach.
To be classified it does not need to be stamped "classified" -- it is automatically classified by the fact of the source information at the top.
Often in the foreign service you communicate things that would not necessarily be classified - such as talks or communications in confidence with others in power etc. (off the record) -- and this lack of taking security seriously put both them and their lives at risk in some cases. What this teaches the world is that the US cannot be trusted with confidential or classified material and they should stop co-operating with the US on or off the record.
Google my last name and Pakistan.
Pretty easy to ban crops when you don't really have agriculture other than sheep :p
NO, you miss the point....
/etc/sudoers file during installation by use of the DYND_PRINT_TO_FILE.
"On Monday, researchers from anti-malware firm Malwarebytes said a new malicious installer is exploiting the vulnerability to surreptitiously infect Macs with several types of adware including VSearch, a variant of the Genieo package, and the MacKeeper junkware. Malwarebytes researcher Adam Thomas stumbled on the exploit after finding the installer modified the sudoers configuration file."
The installer itself has been granted privileges by the operator to install the application to all users. It cannot install itself directly from the browser. It has to be downloaded (and potentially auto-opened) for installation. It either has to be installed maliciously into an application (which is unlikely to be a signed developer).
Subsequent to that installation of the malicious malware, that user that installed the application has been given effective root access WITHOUT requiring passwords on subsequent actions. But until that file is modified, that user does not have sufficient rights, nor do any 3rd party applications have sufficient rights to make changes to that file without user intervention.
The vulnerability is that the installer can make changes to the
It is highly unlikely an application that is from a certified/signed developer is going to contain malware in the installer -- possible but not likely. This means social engineering to get the user to download unsigned applications - then go into security settings and allow that installer an exception to start the installation.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/secur...
Read the code that is being executed by the installer
Subsequent to the installer changing the sudoers file (which requires user installing the application containing the exploit) -- FURTHER applications or would no longer be asked for password during sudo escalation.
"On Monday, researchers from anti-malware firm Malwarebytes said a new malicious installer is exploiting the vulnerability to surreptitiously infect Macs with several types of adware including VSearch, a variant of the Genieo package, and the MacKeeper junkware. Malwarebytes researcher Adam Thomas stumbled on the exploit after finding the installer modified the sudoers configuration file."
The installer itself has been granted privileges by the operator to install the application to all users. It cannot install itself directly from the browser. It has to be downloaded (and potentially auto-opened) for installation. It either has to be installed maliciously into an application (which is unlikely to be a signed developer) -- or a developer would have to link in external packages into their application that could potentially have the exploit.
/etc/sudoers is already read only by root/wheel..... which of course is no problem to change if you are root (which is what you have to give access to to make the changes in the first place) -- and that requires user intervention to install the malware.
NO, Code execution in a browser CANNOT escalate privileges.... none of those applications have sufficient rights to change the /etc/sudoer file. The user would have to download and install an application from an unknown developer - which is blocked by default. You would then have to go into security settings and say - open up that installer for the application anyways. That installer application would then have sufficient privileges to make changes to the file and give that user root access with no asking of the password in the future. It takes a fair amount of social engineering of stupid users to get to that point.
Most unix admins don't allow anyone root access or the ability to install applications. It only exists in OS X to be user friendly. The exploit is closed in 10.10.5 (currently in beta)
.
In El Capitan the security will be rootless by default.
if run "sudo cat /etc/sudoers" it will print out the file in question. The section normally looks like:
# User privilege specification
root ALL=(ALL) ALL
%admin ALL=(ALL) ALL
If it has been changed to include a new user or make changes at the end of any of the lines to add "NOPASSWD:ALL" then you have been affected:
eg.
username ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL
That is the key to a long and successful company :o
Oh wait... sorry backwards.... I guess that is why they are dissolving the company....
200 ft (2/3 the way down the football field if he shot straight up - 280ft+ if he shot at a 45deg angle).... with birdshot... and downing it.... not likely..... very unlikely... possible? maybe - but the probability is the altitude claimed is false.
No one should be flying drones over other people's property. period. If you think it is ok to fly a drone over other people's property (potentially with cameras with zoom lenses)... may you have children that are spied on by pedaphiles...
Now, if flying a drone over other people's property is not allowed -- shooting over other people's property (unlikely the birdshot will obey property boundaries).... but firing up at a target is highly unlikely to be dangerous to anyone on the ground (see Mythbusters) -- wind resistance would make it annoying at best if hit.
If shooting a drone out of the sky and having it fall on someone is dangerous.... then just flying the drone and potentially crashing it (without shooting it out of the sky) is also dangerous....
If you fine the shooter for shooting it down, then the flyer should also pay a fine as well..... and forget about damages... since he should not have been flying it there anyways.
Democracy is not designed to produce better governance.... just hopefully one that more people have a vested interest and where bloody coups are not needed to change the government when they have become too corrupted to continue. Voters vote for collapsing their economies all the time, and sometimes the government actually co-operate....