It is not the NSA's responsibility to make sure software is secure. Their job is...
As an agency of the U.S. government, their job is to uphold the constitution, and specifically their job is to provide for the common defence (you know, that constitution stuff?).
They decided that "making us safer" meant "don't report vulnerabilities that might make us unsafe." That was their decision. "Let's leave the U.S. vulnerable" was what they chose.
They believed that not patching vulnerabilities makes us safer. Worse, not only did they not warn us, and thus allow us to defend against the vulnerability, they actually worked to use that vulnerability to make a tool to break in... and then left that tool lying around for bad guys to pick up and use, because, hey, they thought that they were the big bad wolf and they were immune to the bad guys breaking in.
We're lucky that the bad guys only decided to use it to get a bit of money.
The problem is that for over a hundred and fifty years, ever since the sunspot cycle was discovered (by Schwabe, in 1843), people have been trying to find a relationship between sunspot activity and climate... and have never been able to convincingly find any.
Yes, there's a lot of popular news stories saying that the "little ice age" was due to the Maunder minimum. The only prolem is that the little ice age was already well established well before the Maunder minimum. (The Norse settlement of Greenland was abandoned around 1410, for example).
Current thinking on the little ice age is that it was precipitated by (well documented) volcanic eruptions.
http://news.agu.org/press-rele...
Ya got a point. I remember Newark, New Jersey, back in the day. Good God, you could smell it when you drove past. Bleetch!
And Pittsburgh used to be a grimy stinkpot. I was there last month, though, and I was amazed-- really beautiful city, now that they've stopped the smog and peeled the accumulated grime away.
Well, per capita, the US emits far far more than the rest of the world. But the U.S. is a small fraction of the world.
The US also feeds more of the world per capita, Protects more of the World's people from aggression per capita and provides more of the World's people with heavily subsidized medicine per capita, than any other country in the world.
If some other country wants to take a turn being the lightning rod for the World's anger, then have at it.
I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to the current discussion.
I'm also not sure how it is we decided that we and we alone were supposed to be in charge of running the world. I, for one, would be fine if another nation would take a turn at being the lightning rod for the world's anger.
Do you even know what intelligence and counter intelligences actually do? If the NSA open sources all their tools and methods do you expect the other foreign intelligence agencies to do the same thing? Because that is what the mindless proles are asking for.
As I understand it, what the "mindless proles" are asking for is for the NSA, when they discover that there is a vulnerability in the software that allows it to be attached, to tell the companies that make the software about it to allow it to be patched instead of hiding the information.
By the way-- "mindless proles"?? What's with the neo-Marxist-jargon? I don't think I've heard anybody use the word "proletariat" seriously in fifty years.
That is sort of like going to war and telling your target the time of the attack, the force size the target can expect to face, and then leaving all the ammunition locked up back home in the armory.
It's more like the NSA discovering that there's a grenade strapped to their body, and deciding to disarm it instead of leaving it there and saying "well, probably nobody will notice it."
The NSA is not responsible for securing anyone's software.
Apparently not. Instead they were responsible for developing a vulnerability and then releasing it to the world.
They are a covert intelligence agency empowered to provide security to the US. They can do anything they want to any country on the planet and the only rule is don't get caught.
This is the way criminals reason: "I can do anything I want as long as I don't get caught."
I'd prefer to that lawful organizations are actually obeying the law. "We're powerful so we're above the law" is for tyrants, not free people.
Looking at the graphs, the models seem to reproduce the overall features pretty well. Heres the comparison graph from the paper you cite: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
There are still some variances in the details, but overall, it's the way science works-- you start with getting the overall shape right, and then progressively refine details.
I should point out that it's hard to match the details of the Holocene thermal max because the details aren't really known. It's not even really clear if it was a global effect, or local-- looks like the arctic and northern Europe had a thermal max, but southern Europe cooling, and it looks like the warming was in summer, but not winter. Check out, for example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedl...
Yep, that is a peer-reviewed paper published by actual climatologists. So much for that "consensus", eh?
It's very tempting to say "here's one paper by one group that shows a discrepancy, and thus that overturns everything we thought we knew!" -- but that's only the way science works in the movies. In the real world, science really is a cooperative endeavor. Don't focus on any one paper-- that part about scientific consensus is actually important. You have many eyes looking at every paper, and many papers looking at different aspects of the problem.
But, in this case, the paper you're looking at merely says "here are some places where we need more details" (in the measurements, not just the models-- keep in mind that we know a lot more about contemporary climate than we do about the climate 10,000 years ago-- we directly measure the solar irradiance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the global cloud cover, and the downwelling infrared, for example; all things that have to be inferred from proxies for the climate 10,000 years ago.
Actually, not. The interesting thing about both China and India is that in large parts of the country, they don't have an electrical power grid. So they can install solar-based power solutions without jettisoning the sunk-costs of the existing infrastructure. Building a nation-spanning electrical grid is actually expensive. If you don't have one to start with, going with decentralized generation makes a lot of sense. Contrawise, when you already do have one, much of the advantage of decentralized generation is lost.
so, it seems slightly paradoxical, but actually, it makes sense for the un-developed countries to lead in this respect.
It's about time we focused on emissions from "developing countries."
The correct answer is "focus on both". You can't solve global problems by saying "let the other guy solve all the problems, we won't do anything." And you also can't solve global problems by saying "we'll work on our problems, but we'll ignore everybody else's contributions."
That's the thing about "global": it's everybody's problem.
The stuff the US emits is harmless plant food compared to the toxic shit these derelicts dump into the air and water on a day to day basis.
Well, per capita, the US emits far far more than the rest of the world. But the U.S. is a small fraction of the world.
Not true, at all. The US was a hodgepodge of phone companies, state tariffs, interstate tariffs, intrastate tariffs, LATAs, and was owned by a lot of co-ops.
Ah, youngsters. Don't remember the old days.
No, you're talking about after the breakup of AT&T. Before the breakup, there was Ma Bell. There were a few places that still had other phone companies, but for the most part, it was the one giant monopoly, Ma Bell.
Some still remain... use Cincinnati Bell as an example.
That name, "Cincinnati Bell," should be a clue that this is a piece of one of the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies ("Baby Bells") that were formed as a result of the breakup of AT&T.
...What made Google great was that it always had what you were looking for in the top 10. That the search words were AND'ed (Altavista used OR, unless you added a + in front).
Nowadays, I can almost count on none of the pages Google present having all of my search words, even if I add + and quotes and all.
Indeed. I am often puzzled sometimes as to why Google gives pages in the top two or three hits that are missing one of my search terms.
I would have thought "give the user hits that match what they are explicitly searching for would have been high on the list of what a search engine should do, but apparently that's not relevant according to google.
Third, the time limit is pretty steep as you need to use most passwords daily.
Where the hell did you get that incorrect piece of information?
The average user has 22 passwords. You don't use all of these every day. I have passwords I use ever day, passwords I use twice week, passwords I use once a week, passwords I use once a month, and a whole pile of passwords I use when needed which may or may not be twice a week or once in a year.
But then we did a password audit and the results were horrifying.
Horrifying in what way?
Horrifying in that you discovered that the time and energy and lost work involved in enforcing useless password protocols came to many millions of dollars a year?
You should be able to tell if you're doing good work or not. Don't rely on your boss; chances are your boss knows less about your work than you do. You should be able to observe how your results compare to those being done by others.
Od course, if you're in the Dunning-Kruger regime, a self-evaluation may fail.
I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.
That's already been through the courts. They can search your car if they impound it.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html
Yep. Every time you make a phone call a dialer app is used, even.
Phone call? You mean that smartphones have that capability now?
I suppose there is probably a niche market for actually talking to people on your phone, although I'm not sure who would want that, when it's so much easier to just text them or tag them on a social media post.
Why is it that social media addicts post everything you never wanted to know about their lives online for all to see, and yet if you were to demand to see their internet history, they would run around and scream like a rabid monkey, totally offended over such an invasion of privacy.
So, you're saying that you think it's inconsistent if I have some things that I want to keep private, but be I'm OK with having other things public. In essence, you say, if I allow anything whatsoever to be public, that means that I should have no right to privacy in anything.
And, furthermore, you seem to be saying that if some social media users reveal information about themselves, all users of social media clearly want the information revealed.
Either give enough of a shit about your privacy to try and stop the destruction of it, or don't give a shit about any of it.
That's a false dichotomy. Some things I want to be private, and some things I don't.
What I want is for it to be my choice what part of my life I want to keep private, and what parts public.
I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'
Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."
So, the unemployment news is "nothing particularly exceptional happened in the jobs and unemployment statistics this month, according to the Labor department".
Well, it's criminal conspiracy. Other than that, I suppose that you could say people trying to hide crimes are "implementing their right to not self-incriminate."
Quote:
"Cloudflare also has an added appeal to sites such as The Daily Stormer [the neo-Nazi web site]. It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content. For instance, when a reader figures out that Cloudflare is the internet company serving sites like The Daily Stormer, they sometimes write to the company to protest. Cloudflare, per its policy, then relays the name and email address of the person complaining to the hate site, often to the surprise and regret of those complaining....
“I wasn’t aware that my information would be sent on. I suppose I, naively, had an expectation of privacy,” said Jennifer Dalton, who had complained that The Daily Stormer was asking its readers to harass Twitter users after the election.
Andrew Anglin, the owner of The Daily Stormer, has been candid about how he feels about people reporting his site for its content.
“We need to make it clear to all of these people that there are consequences for messing with us,” Anglin wrote in one online post. “We are not a bunch of babies to be kicked around. We will take revenge. And we will do it now.”
Slashdot Mirror
It is not the NSA's responsibility to make sure software is secure. Their job is ...
As an agency of the U.S. government, their job is to uphold the constitution, and specifically their job is to provide for the common defence (you know, that constitution stuff?).
They decided that "making us safer" meant "don't report vulnerabilities that might make us unsafe." That was their decision. "Let's leave the U.S. vulnerable" was what they chose.
They believed that not patching vulnerabilities makes us safer. Worse, not only did they not warn us, and thus allow us to defend against the vulnerability, they actually worked to use that vulnerability to make a tool to break in... and then left that tool lying around for bad guys to pick up and use, because, hey, they thought that they were the big bad wolf and they were immune to the bad guys breaking in.
We're lucky that the bad guys only decided to use it to get a bit of money.
This time.
You're the first ever comment I've ever read with factual information that shows an alternative point of view against all this climate change debate.
Alternate point of view, yes. Factual information, no.
People have been trying to document a connection between sunspots and climate for a hundred and fifty years. It's simply not there.
And when you think about it, if a single solar flare has the potential to be big enough to end all life on the planet,
Uh, I'd really like to see a citation for that.
A big solar flare could take out the electric grid, yes. "End life on the planet"?? I don't think so.
Yes, there's a lot of popular news stories saying that the "little ice age" was due to the Maunder minimum. The only prolem is that the little ice age was already well established well before the Maunder minimum. (The Norse settlement of Greenland was abandoned around 1410, for example).
Current thinking on the little ice age is that it was precipitated by (well documented) volcanic eruptions. http://news.agu.org/press-rele...
And Pittsburgh used to be a grimy stinkpot. I was there last month, though, and I was amazed-- really beautiful city, now that they've stopped the smog and peeled the accumulated grime away.
Well, per capita, the US emits far far more than the rest of the world. But the U.S. is a small fraction of the world.
The US also feeds more of the world per capita, Protects more of the World's people from aggression per capita and provides more of the World's people with heavily subsidized medicine per capita, than any other country in the world. If some other country wants to take a turn being the lightning rod for the World's anger, then have at it.
I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to the current discussion.
I'm also not sure how it is we decided that we and we alone were supposed to be in charge of running the world. I, for one, would be fine if another nation would take a turn at being the lightning rod for the world's anger.
Do you even know what intelligence and counter intelligences actually do? If the NSA open sources all their tools and methods do you expect the other foreign intelligence agencies to do the same thing? Because that is what the mindless proles are asking for.
As I understand it, what the "mindless proles" are asking for is for the NSA, when they discover that there is a vulnerability in the software that allows it to be attached, to tell the companies that make the software about it to allow it to be patched instead of hiding the information.
By the way-- "mindless proles"?? What's with the neo-Marxist-jargon? I don't think I've heard anybody use the word "proletariat" seriously in fifty years.
That is sort of like going to war and telling your target the time of the attack, the force size the target can expect to face, and then leaving all the ammunition locked up back home in the armory.
It's more like the NSA discovering that there's a grenade strapped to their body, and deciding to disarm it instead of leaving it there and saying "well, probably nobody will notice it."
The NSA is not responsible for securing anyone's software.
Apparently not. Instead they were responsible for developing a vulnerability and then releasing it to the world.
They are a covert intelligence agency empowered to provide security to the US. They can do anything they want to any country on the planet and the only rule is don't get caught.
This is the way criminals reason: "I can do anything I want as long as I don't get caught."
I'd prefer to that lawful organizations are actually obeying the law. "We're powerful so we're above the law" is for tyrants, not free people.
Looking at the graphs, the models seem to reproduce the overall features pretty well. Heres the comparison graph from the paper you cite: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
There are still some variances in the details, but overall, it's the way science works-- you start with getting the overall shape right, and then progressively refine details.
I should point out that it's hard to match the details of the Holocene thermal max because the details aren't really known. It's not even really clear if it was a global effect, or local-- looks like the arctic and northern Europe had a thermal max, but southern Europe cooling, and it looks like the warming was in summer, but not winter. Check out, for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou... http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedl...
Yep, that is a peer-reviewed paper published by actual climatologists. So much for that "consensus", eh?
It's very tempting to say "here's one paper by one group that shows a discrepancy, and thus that overturns everything we thought we knew!" -- but that's only the way science works in the movies. In the real world, science really is a cooperative endeavor. Don't focus on any one paper-- that part about scientific consensus is actually important. You have many eyes looking at every paper, and many papers looking at different aspects of the problem.
But, in this case, the paper you're looking at merely says "here are some places where we need more details" (in the measurements, not just the models-- keep in mind that we know a lot more about contemporary climate than we do about the climate 10,000 years ago-- we directly measure the solar irradiance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the global cloud cover, and the downwelling infrared, for example; all things that have to be inferred from proxies for the climate 10,000 years ago.
...to commit economic suicide.
Actually, not. The interesting thing about both China and India is that in large parts of the country, they don't have an electrical power grid. So they can install solar-based power solutions without jettisoning the sunk-costs of the existing infrastructure. Building a nation-spanning electrical grid is actually expensive. If you don't have one to start with, going with decentralized generation makes a lot of sense. Contrawise, when you already do have one, much of the advantage of decentralized generation is lost.
so, it seems slightly paradoxical, but actually, it makes sense for the un-developed countries to lead in this respect.
It's about time we focused on emissions from "developing countries."
The correct answer is "focus on both". You can't solve global problems by saying "let the other guy solve all the problems, we won't do anything." And you also can't solve global problems by saying "we'll work on our problems, but we'll ignore everybody else's contributions."
That's the thing about "global": it's everybody's problem.
The stuff the US emits is harmless plant food compared to the toxic shit these derelicts dump into the air and water on a day to day basis.
Well, per capita, the US emits far far more than the rest of the world. But the U.S. is a small fraction of the world.
It's not just the Chinese saying "blame the NSA".
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-14/microsoft-slams-nsa-letting-its-hacking-tools-cause-global-malware-epidemic
Oh, we've got that where I work too. We call it a Keurig.
Yes, but that's not micro dosing.
At least, not the way I use it...
I thought we just called that a Ritalin prescription.
Not Ratalin: Prozac.
They're both pharmaceuticals that adjust brain serotonin levels. Prozac is just a bit less of a sledgehammer in how it does it.
Not true, at all. The US was a hodgepodge of phone companies, state tariffs, interstate tariffs, intrastate tariffs, LATAs, and was owned by a lot of co-ops.
Ah, youngsters. Don't remember the old days.
No, you're talking about after the breakup of AT&T. Before the breakup, there was Ma Bell. There were a few places that still had other phone companies, but for the most part, it was the one giant monopoly, Ma Bell.
Some still remain... use Cincinnati Bell as an example.
That name, "Cincinnati Bell," should be a clue that this is a piece of one of the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies ("Baby Bells") that were formed as a result of the breakup of AT&T.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/lessons-att-break-30-years-later/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/att-merger-history/
...What made Google great was that it always had what you were looking for in the top 10. That the search words were AND'ed (Altavista used OR, unless you added a + in front).
Nowadays, I can almost count on none of the pages Google present having all of my search words, even if I add + and quotes and all.
Indeed. I am often puzzled sometimes as to why Google gives pages in the top two or three hits that are missing one of my search terms.
I would have thought "give the user hits that match what they are explicitly searching for would have been high on the list of what a search engine should do, but apparently that's not relevant according to google.
Third, the time limit is pretty steep as you need to use most passwords daily.
Where the hell did you get that incorrect piece of information?
The average user has 22 passwords. You don't use all of these every day. I have passwords I use ever day, passwords I use twice week, passwords I use once a week, passwords I use once a month, and a whole pile of passwords I use when needed which may or may not be twice a week or once in a year.
But then we did a password audit and the results were horrifying.
Horrifying in what way?
Horrifying in that you discovered that the time and energy and lost work involved in enforcing useless password protocols came to many millions of dollars a year?
Od course, if you're in the Dunning-Kruger regime, a self-evaluation may fail.
I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.
That's already been through the courts. They can search your car if they impound it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html
Yep. Every time you make a phone call a dialer app is used, even.
Phone call? You mean that smartphones have that capability now?
I suppose there is probably a niche market for actually talking to people on your phone, although I'm not sure who would want that, when it's so much easier to just text them or tag them on a social media post.
Why is it that social media addicts post everything you never wanted to know about their lives online for all to see, and yet if you were to demand to see their internet history, they would run around and scream like a rabid monkey, totally offended over such an invasion of privacy.
So, you're saying that you think it's inconsistent if I have some things that I want to keep private, but be I'm OK with having other things public. In essence, you say, if I allow anything whatsoever to be public, that means that I should have no right to privacy in anything.
And, furthermore, you seem to be saying that if some social media users reveal information about themselves, all users of social media clearly want the information revealed.
Either give enough of a shit about your privacy to try and stop the destruction of it, or don't give a shit about any of it.
That's a false dichotomy. Some things I want to be private, and some things I don't.
What I want is for it to be my choice what part of my life I want to keep private, and what parts public.
It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book.
That might be exceptional, but it isn't true. It is the lowest level in a decade. Here's a graph of the unemployment rate since the 1960s:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
where you can see the rate dropped below 4.4% many times.
Here's a graph (from six months ago) looking just at the last 15 years:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
and you can see the rate was below 4.4% right until the 2008 economic crash hit. You can also see that 4.4% is nothing exceptional, simply the continuation of the trend.
I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'
Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."
So, the unemployment news is "nothing particularly exceptional happened in the jobs and unemployment statistics this month, according to the Labor department".
Well, it's criminal conspiracy. Other than that, I suppose that you could say people trying to hide crimes are "implementing their right to not self-incriminate."
The headline is a little misleading. The headline seems to be about the movie "The Circle", but the text about the tv show "Silicon Valley".
For some reason the link was to the CNET article. The actual propublica article is here: https://www.propublica.org/art...
Quote:
"Cloudflare also has an added appeal to sites such as The Daily Stormer [the neo-Nazi web site]. It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content. For instance, when a reader figures out that Cloudflare is the internet company serving sites like The Daily Stormer, they sometimes write to the company to protest. Cloudflare, per its policy, then relays the name and email address of the person complaining to the hate site, often to the surprise and regret of those complaining....
“I wasn’t aware that my information would be sent on. I suppose I, naively, had an expectation of privacy,” said Jennifer Dalton, who had complained that The Daily Stormer was asking its readers to harass Twitter users after the election.
Andrew Anglin, the owner of The Daily Stormer, has been candid about how he feels about people reporting his site for its content. “We need to make it clear to all of these people that there are consequences for messing with us,” Anglin wrote in one online post. “We are not a bunch of babies to be kicked around. We will take revenge. And we will do it now.”