Out of curiousity, do you have any sort of netsec/infosec background, or does most of this come from reporters babbling about how everything is new and different (this time, really, we mean it)?
Defending a system under attack in real-time is... both very easy, and very difficult. Your main option is whether you pull the plug or not, and if you do that tends to be very effective. The blue/red team wargaming seems more like the sort of thing done to make someone feel they're doing something useful.
However, having people who can co-ordinate and manage information coming in, I can really see benefit to, even if they're just advising on when/where to pull network cables out to stop the flood.
> Photons don't interact with each other, and don't "fill up" anything.
Completely the wrong sort of spectrum.
> Fortunately, nature provides each device with a unique "address": its location in space.
Which you can't tell from a single receiver. Direction is possible, but you need a second receiver at sufficient distance to get a second accurate reading, to get location. Not that it helps anyway; radio waves do interact, and weaker signals can be drowned out by more powerful ones.
> Rather than clinging to the outdated concept of a scarce spectrum, regulatory agencies should start giving it back to the public, and encourage the proper use of it.
We could call it the 2.4Ghz band, and fill it with low power transmitters using 802.11[bgn]? BT FON in the UK ( http://www.btfon.com/ ) is probably what you want; home broadband connections converted to Wi-Fi access points. Free for all BT FON providers to use any other access point in the network, or others can use it as a normal pay access point.
One, is critical to my employer, and if it goes wrong, it will be dramatic. Apparently when one of our competitors screwed up, it made the news.
The other, is kinda... y'know, it's nice if it works, but we want it cheap.
The first is 2/3rds the size of the second, a fraction of the complexity, and took 6 times as long to develop, and was considered to be developed an ambitious timescale.
We are not talking about putting a bit more effort and a few hours in here and there to bring quality up, we're talking an entirely different development process, and it would drive costs through the roof.
Sure; but this is not about a few corners being cut, this is about an order of magnitude difference in costs. The design requirements, implementation, and QA are all massively increased.
That's fine if you're building a nuclear power plant's control systems, or an autopilot, but to be blunt, people are happy with Windows because it makes the right compromises for them.
Beyond the arguments about it being more costly, developing software to the degree of security we're talking will basically cause it to grind to a halt. Look at the popularity of Linux (with all its modern features) vs OpenBSD (with all its security).
> other mathematically proven insufficient and inefficient efforts
What are you going to do, have all software put through mathematical proof? I'm not even sure it's in any way feasible...
I believe the university will want you to sign over copyright, but it's not a requirement. There will be some usage they insist on, but I couldn't tell you details off hand. Some theses are commercially sensitive (either outright paid for by a company, or the student will be selling the research), and there's definitely exemptions made for those.
However, the university will be in a much better position to advise on this stuff.
Here's the thing; IE is basically free to manage if you're using Windows. To install Firefox means extra testing work, and I'm told it requires tailoring to work effectively with our desktop management, so there is a cost involved.
Any case I try to make for installing Firefox has to be based on a benefit to the organisation. IE security holes are patched fast enough there's no case to be made there, so it depends on increased web app development costs. That can be done with Firefox on a yearly release schedule.
On a 6 week release schedule, the costs of updating and testing it are hopelessly more than we'll save.
Long story short; this will severly undermine Firefox in the workplace, and that will undermine support for it. Maybe you don't remember when testing on browsers apart from IE was considered wasteful, but I do.
> Btw. How comes those people only get bonuses and not fines to?
The bigger question should be about level of bonus. An institutional trader is generally accepted to be taking less personal risk, than an individual trader, and that's fine, but should be paid in proportion to the risk relative to the risk taken on by their employer. As it stands, there's a trend towards "I made $BIGNUM for my employer so should get a sizable fraction of that as a bonus" without anyone going "Okay, but what was your employer's risk, not to mention overheads, in enabling you to make that profit?"
(And yes, you do get individual traders, even individual algorithmic/high-frequency traders, although typically it's considered loosely on par with hand grenade juggling in terms of personal risk)
I'm personally of the opinion that the only way they could make me trust anything they've ever touched with data, less, would be to call it "Willloseyourdata" or similar. This makes GIMP look like a masterpiece of software naming.
> In retrospect, I probably should have complained to the Dean.
I would agree. It might be that a very poorly considered choice of course content was made, and the intro course replaced between years (so the previous intro course made sense as a second course), but really not something that should happen.
> The "double dipping" as they call it is something that only and idiot with no academic experience could come up with. In getting an engineering degree
So the thing is, it makes a degree of sense for arts subject degrees, where students are frequently given fairly flexible essay subjects to write on, and are expected to demonstrate a new understanding of the topic rather than recycle something they've written about before.
I'd be inclined to agree that it's not sensibly applicable to science subjects, though.
Self-plagiarism is not up to Turnitin to make decisions on; my employer doesn't allow it (and while I think I know why, am not confident enough to comment publicly), others may not. Turnitin merely flags such sections as such, and it's then up to the institution to make a call on it. They have their own page on the matter, which summarises effectively: https://turnitin.com/static/helpCenter/self_plagiarism.php
Turnitin is actually really good at finding minor changes/rephrasings, you really do have to re-write the content to get it not to match. Believe me, I was really skeptical at first, but it does do a really good job.
I'd particularly like to point out, as someone working on making something expensive (education) more efficient/cheaper, that part of the point is to enable everyone to partake of these things.
I don't see a lack of vehicles that can be used that way, I see fuel prices (partly driven by scarcity, although given the drop in oil prices it's difficult to argue that for all of this) that make many of those vehicles infeasible.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiousity, do you have any sort of netsec/infosec background, or does most of this come from reporters babbling about how everything is new and different (this time, really, we mean it)?
Defending a system under attack in real-time is... both very easy, and very difficult. Your main option is whether you pull the plug or not, and if you do that tends to be very effective. The blue/red team wargaming seems more like the sort of thing done to make someone feel they're doing something useful.
However, having people who can co-ordinate and manage information coming in, I can really see benefit to, even if they're just advising on when/where to pull network cables out to stop the flood.
> Completely the wrong sort of spectrum.
Apologies, I was wrong. Embarrassingly, Wikipedia had to come to my rescue.
Before anyone else gets into this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Yeah, I was always told photons were light, and were different. TIL...
We are still left with the issue that a stronger source can make a weaker one indistinguishable, though.
> Photons don't interact with each other, and don't "fill up" anything.
Completely the wrong sort of spectrum.
> Fortunately, nature provides each device with a unique "address": its location in space.
Which you can't tell from a single receiver. Direction is possible, but you need a second receiver at sufficient distance to get a second accurate reading, to get location. Not that it helps anyway; radio waves do interact, and weaker signals can be drowned out by more powerful ones.
> Rather than clinging to the outdated concept of a scarce spectrum, regulatory agencies should start giving it back to the public, and encourage the proper use of it.
We could call it the 2.4Ghz band, and fill it with low power transmitters using 802.11[bgn]? BT FON in the UK ( http://www.btfon.com/ ) is probably what you want; home broadband connections converted to Wi-Fi access points. Free for all BT FON providers to use any other access point in the network, or others can use it as a normal pay access point.
Any day now I'm expecting they'll go versionless like HTML 5 did ( http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 ).
I've done two big projects recently.
One, is critical to my employer, and if it goes wrong, it will be dramatic. Apparently when one of our competitors screwed up, it made the news.
The other, is kinda... y'know, it's nice if it works, but we want it cheap.
The first is 2/3rds the size of the second, a fraction of the complexity, and took 6 times as long to develop, and was considered to be developed an ambitious timescale.
We are not talking about putting a bit more effort and a few hours in here and there to bring quality up, we're talking an entirely different development process, and it would drive costs through the roof.
I'm actually fairly certain the increased piracy from shipping the source code to Windows with each copy would be less than the liability costs...
Sure; but this is not about a few corners being cut, this is about an order of magnitude difference in costs. The design requirements, implementation, and QA are all massively increased.
That's fine if you're building a nuclear power plant's control systems, or an autopilot, but to be blunt, people are happy with Windows because it makes the right compromises for them.
Beyond the arguments about it being more costly, developing software to the degree of security we're talking will basically cause it to grind to a halt. Look at the popularity of Linux (with all its modern features) vs OpenBSD (with all its security).
> other mathematically proven insufficient and inefficient efforts
What are you going to do, have all software put through mathematical proof? I'm not even sure it's in any way feasible...
It's a widely used tool that does provide an effective similarity detection service, so... it's better than nothing, certainly.
I believe the university will want you to sign over copyright, but it's not a requirement. There will be some usage they insist on, but I couldn't tell you details off hand. Some theses are commercially sensitive (either outright paid for by a company, or the student will be selling the research), and there's definitely exemptions made for those.
However, the university will be in a much better position to advise on this stuff.
That way when someone copies large parts of it and submits it as their own work, it's harder to tell?
Here's the thing; IE is basically free to manage if you're using Windows. To install Firefox means extra testing work, and I'm told it requires tailoring to work effectively with our desktop management, so there is a cost involved.
Any case I try to make for installing Firefox has to be based on a benefit to the organisation. IE security holes are patched fast enough there's no case to be made there, so it depends on increased web app development costs. That can be done with Firefox on a yearly release schedule.
On a 6 week release schedule, the costs of updating and testing it are hopelessly more than we'll save.
Long story short; this will severly undermine Firefox in the workplace, and that will undermine support for it. Maybe you don't remember when testing on browsers apart from IE was considered wasteful, but I do.
> Btw. How comes those people only get bonuses and not fines to?
The bigger question should be about level of bonus. An institutional trader is generally accepted to be taking less personal risk, than an individual trader, and that's fine, but should be paid in proportion to the risk relative to the risk taken on by their employer. As it stands, there's a trend towards "I made $BIGNUM for my employer so should get a sizable fraction of that as a bonus" without anyone going "Okay, but what was your employer's risk, not to mention overheads, in enabling you to make that profit?"
(And yes, you do get individual traders, even individual algorithmic/high-frequency traders, although typically it's considered loosely on par with hand grenade juggling in terms of personal risk)
I'm beginning to suspect there's a serious flaw in the Turing test, and it's humanity.
I'm personally of the opinion that the only way they could make me trust anything they've ever touched with data, less, would be to call it "Willloseyourdata" or similar. This makes GIMP look like a masterpiece of software naming.
> In retrospect, I probably should have complained to the Dean.
I would agree. It might be that a very poorly considered choice of course content was made, and the intro course replaced between years (so the previous intro course made sense as a second course), but really not something that should happen.
> The "double dipping" as they call it is something that only and idiot with no academic experience could come up with. In getting an engineering degree
So the thing is, it makes a degree of sense for arts subject degrees, where students are frequently given fairly flexible essay subjects to write on, and are expected to demonstrate a new understanding of the topic rather than recycle something they've written about before.
I'd be inclined to agree that it's not sensibly applicable to science subjects, though.
Self-plagiarism is not up to Turnitin to make decisions on; my employer doesn't allow it (and while I think I know why, am not confident enough to comment publicly), others may not. Turnitin merely flags such sections as such, and it's then up to the institution to make a call on it. They have their own page on the matter, which summarises effectively: https://turnitin.com/static/helpCenter/self_plagiarism.php
Turnitin is actually really good at finding minor changes/rephrasings, you really do have to re-write the content to get it not to match. Believe me, I was really skeptical at first, but it does do a really good job.
> Find every IP launching the attack and prosecute them for hacking, even if all they did was own an insecure system.
Even if they get hit by a 0-day attack?
I'd particularly like to point out, as someone working on making something expensive (education) more efficient/cheaper, that part of the point is to enable everyone to partake of these things.
I don't see a lack of vehicles that can be used that way, I see fuel prices (partly driven by scarcity, although given the drop in oil prices it's difficult to argue that for all of this) that make many of those vehicles infeasible.
> It's not the destination that's important, it's the journey.
You don't fly in economy class a lot, do you? :)
I'd have been rather interested in their answer to the question "How did you vote in the last election?"