I've been to countries where taxation is almost non-existent, and most of them suck. Most of them are NOT places you'd want to live unless you were fairly well off in comparison to the rest of the population, and often not even then.
Riiiiiight....and we've all seen how well the "cut taxes to the bone" model has worked in Kansas and Louisiana. Both states are nearly bankrupt, are deeply in debt, and can't afford to pay for basic services like schools, police, roads, and other "socialist" infrastructure.
No one like paying taxes, but they're a necessary thing in a modern society. It's a fact, and no amount of voodoo tax-cutting theory will change that.
Some people complain that everything was great 100 years ago where there was no taxation. Yeah, there were no taxes 100 years ago, and you know what else we didn't have 100 years ago?
A standing army, the FDA, the EPA, clean, drinkable water coming from every faucet, 24-hour emergency rooms, fully-staffed hospitals waiting to give you life-saving care, fire departments, 12 years of public education, child-abuse investigators, controls on what toxic chemicals can be poured into your drinking water, nationwide 911 service, a national highway system, social services, drug treatment centers, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, community colleges, public schools, water and sewer systems, parks and recreation services, food inspection, electrical utilities, gas service, a National School Lunch Program, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, foster care services, School Breakfast Programs, State Children's Insurance Programs, Unemployment insurance, Worker's Comp, Senior Community Service Employment Programs, street lights, mass transit, zoning, planning, building permits and inspection, housing and development programs, road maintenance, the State Board of Health, building inspections, building and fire codes, disaster relief, FEMA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the FBI, flood mitigation, pollution inspections, drug treatment centers, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Library of Congress, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and on and on and on.
Frankly, I like those things. I I like knowing that the medication I take has been tested. I I like knowing the food I eat has been inspected. I I like having 911 to call for help. I I like roads and sewers and electrical service. I I like Social Security.
I'm no fan of taxes, believe me, but that's how things are paid for- the roads we drive on, emergency services, the Post Office, libraries, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, etc etc. Taxes have enabled this country to be able to pay for the things that make it a good place to live.
If you don't like taxes, from the list of things above, which one(s) should be cut or eliminated? Seriously, which ones would you do away with?
Hey, you can still like Pluto, we won't think any less of you for it. What happens between two consenting adults or space-borne objects is nobody's business but your own.
So your idea of "hacking" is "do what it lets you do out of the box".
No. Perhaps I should clarify; I probably should have said, "easy to be hacked right out of the box", or "dreadfully insecure right out of the box".
If you think that "no authentication, no passwords" and "default read access to everything for any user" as the default state upon installation is a good thing, then you might want to learn a little bit about web security.
It's really just a 3.5 million character self-modifying regex. It should be aware by now. I knew this day was coming. What fools we've been!
I have a friend who says that our brain and our neural activity is "just a giant, continuously self-modifying regex pattern", and I'm not certain he's wrong. It would explain a lot, lol.
Actually, unless it's worded incorrectly, the headline does appear to be the raw number.
"The platform, dubbed AI Squared (AI2), is able to detect 85 percent of attacks"
Yes, it's "roughly three times better than current benchmarks", but the 85% figure does seem to be the overall detection rate. The reduction in false positives seems like a good improvement, though.
There's some stuff you should never never put on a phone. Just like some stuff never never put on a computer that is connected to the internet.
Agreed 100%. I don't keep anything sensitive on my phone, period. For example, I don't do any banking from my phone. I don't use it for anything that could have what I think could might result in negative consequences to my finances or deeper personal data. Home address? Nope. Automated logins or stored passwords? Nope.
Most of the photos I take with it get transferred to a desktop PC and don't live on the phone. Not all, but most. The ones that remain are pretty innocuous. The police could search my phone top to bottom and wouldn't find anything terribly interesting.
The few passwords I keep on it are stored in an open text file, but mixed up and obfuscated. Hell, even I have trouble remembering which service they're for and whether they're reversed or written in "off-by-one" notation.
-
Yes, PITA. Usabilty vs. Security.
Yup, it's a trade-off. The thing is that I consider my phone to be a landmine waiting to be stepped on if it falls into the wrong hands, so nothing of any value is ever kept on it. If I lose it, oh well. There is a "Reward For This Phone" contact in there with a number people could call to return it, but I'd probably just go buy another one, I wouldn't count on it ever being returned to me.
I'd love to have a under-the-skin memory chip implanted in my arm that would link to my phone, but so far no one is offering such a thing. Just a gigabyte or two to hold the key stuff, that's all I'd need.
How do we build secure systems? Patching up all the thousands of holes one by one is not a solution.
To be frank, I'm not sure there is a solution. Complex systems are, well, complex...and complexity almost invariably leads to mistakes. (Heh, ask me how I know...)
But I don't see how something like a network can ever be reliably secured....too many different bits of this and that to keep track of, patch, upgrade, etc etc. Things can be secured to a point, sure, but in real life all that stuff changes over time and it seems impossible to me to ever keep up with it 100%.
You may have a team of 20 top-notch sysadmins locking stuff down, but there may be 10,000 hackers trying to break in...at some point one of them is going to find a flaw. The sysadmins have to on top of their game 100% of the time, but the bad guys only have to get lucky once. The game seems to be heavily weighted towards the hackers, especially in the long run.
The idea of keeping things simple is a good one, but probably not a practical approach. For example, how simple can you make an enterprise network? My guess is that the answer is "not very".
Windows is definitely a problem, but I think these problems are inherent in any OS, any network, any complex system. There may not actually be a good solution.
sigh, MongoDB. On install 1. no authentication, no passwords 2. default read access to everything for any user 3. no granularity. 4. data sent in the clear 5. no encryption 6. binds to all available interfaces
If I didn't know better (and I don't) it would seem that one of MongoDB's design goals was "easy to hack right out of the box".
I read the whole account, and although I by no means understood everything, it was a fascinating read.
It appears that almost any route into a system will lead to more exploitable routes, and those lead to even more, and so on, until you're basically free to roam at will, read and change key files, install all the backdoors you like, and so on. He basically ended up with an embarrassment of riches, so to speak, with as much (or likely more) access than all of the legit admins combined.
It would appear that truly locking down a large, complex network is next to impossible- there are so many moving parts and so many places to prod and poke that sooner or later, someone will find that one little vulnerability that opens the door.
It's hard not to admire someone with skills and the persistence it took to do this.
"MPAA Wants ISPs to Disconnect Persistent Pirates"....and they went on to say, "and we want a pony! And a 60-ft red yacht with gold handrails! And we want the letter "E" removed from the dictionary!"
You wouldn't happen to know anyone affiliated with this, would you?
I'm sorry, I don't know anyone who's connected with this program. There's probably a way to donate through Amazon, but I don't know how/where to do that.
People are not homeless because they are poor. They are homeless because they are mentally ill, usually combined with alcohol and drug abuse.
We need to address both poverty and homelessness, but they are two very different issues.
This is often true, and the homelessness/poverty cycle is a vicious circle. Mentally ill often self medicate with alcohol and drug abuse, which can quickly lead to being unemployable (if they weren't already unemployable in some fashion), and being unemployed they have little or no money, certainly not enough to afford housing. No housing means you're gonna be living on the street, which can exacerbate both mental illness and a state of being unemployable. It's an ugly cycle, very difficult to extricate yourself from once you've fallen into it.
There are, however, some people who genuinely do want to be homeless, but in general they're a fraction of those who are homeless. Most would prefer to have shelter and some sort of place to call home.
As far as Seattle goes, I've been seeing more and more people hanging out at freeway entrances/exits looking for handouts in the last few years. I don't recall seeing nearly as many of them 10 years ago, or even 5. Homelessness has definitely gotten worse here as far as I can tell.
It's not just my idea. It is, in fact, the will of the people.
Actually, quite a few people* have expressed a desire for post editing, but as long as you're speaking for the will of the people I guess we'll all just fall in line, Herr Drinkypoo.
-
*Indeed, Whipslash had mentioned at one point that "it was coming", so maybe your the will of the people isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Slashdot is all about arguing, and therefore it would be bad here.
It's a shame that you view slashdot this way (just another way for you to vent your spleen), but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about slashdot.
-
This isn't about my asshole, this is about your lack of competence.
No, it's about you being an asshole, and your inability to understand that different people want different things. Your opinion isn't the gold standard, and with any luck you'll learn about that in High School.
The idea that fossil fuels could be "phased out" in a decade is so ludicrous that I hardly know where to begin.
Yes, we'll just replace EVERY car, truck, bus, motorcycle, and every other existing conveyance that uses an internal combustion engine. No PROBLEM!
Then we'll do the same for every bit of construction equipment in the world (earth moving machines, trucking & hauling vehicles, paving and compacting machinery, lifting & material handling equipment, drilling & trenching gear, etc).
And sure, we'll do it all in 10 years. HA HA HA HA!
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to countries where taxation is almost non-existent, and most of them suck. Most of them are NOT places you'd want to live unless you were fairly well off in comparison to the rest of the population, and often not even then.
Riiiiiight....and we've all seen how well the "cut taxes to the bone" model has worked in Kansas and Louisiana. Both states are nearly bankrupt, are deeply in debt, and can't afford to pay for basic services like schools, police, roads, and other "socialist" infrastructure.
No one like paying taxes, but they're a necessary thing in a modern society. It's a fact, and no amount of voodoo tax-cutting theory will change that.
Some people complain that everything was great 100 years ago where there was no taxation. Yeah, there were no taxes 100 years ago, and you know what else we didn't have 100 years ago?
A standing army, the FDA, the EPA, clean, drinkable water coming from every faucet, 24-hour emergency rooms, fully-staffed hospitals waiting to give you life-saving care, fire departments, 12 years of public education, child-abuse investigators, controls on what toxic chemicals can be poured into your drinking water, nationwide 911 service, a national highway system, social services, drug treatment centers, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, community colleges, public schools, water and sewer systems, parks and recreation services, food inspection, electrical utilities, gas service, a National School Lunch Program, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, foster care services, School Breakfast Programs, State Children's Insurance Programs, Unemployment insurance, Worker's Comp, Senior Community Service Employment Programs, street lights, mass transit, zoning, planning, building permits and inspection, housing and development programs, road maintenance, the State Board of Health, building inspections, building and fire codes, disaster relief, FEMA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the FBI, flood mitigation, pollution inspections, drug treatment centers, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Library of Congress, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and on and on and on.
Frankly, I like those things. I I like knowing that the medication I take has been tested. I I like knowing the food I eat has been inspected. I I like having 911 to call for help. I I like roads and sewers and electrical service. I I like Social Security.
I'm no fan of taxes, believe me, but that's how things are paid for- the roads we drive on, emergency services, the Post Office, libraries, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, etc etc. Taxes have enabled this country to be able to pay for the things that make it a good place to live.
If you don't like taxes, from the list of things above, which one(s) should be cut or eliminated? Seriously, which ones would you do away with?
And I LIKED Pluto.
Hey, you can still like Pluto, we won't think any less of you for it. What happens between two consenting adults or space-borne objects is nobody's business but your own.
Don't they say that "a mistress is something between a mister and a mattress"? ;)
Ah yes, space debris, another problem that's easy to create and practically fucking impossible to fix.
So your idea of "hacking" is "do what it lets you do out of the box".
No. Perhaps I should clarify; I probably should have said, "easy to be hacked right out of the box", or "dreadfully insecure right out of the box".
If you think that "no authentication, no passwords" and "default read access to everything for any user" as the default state upon installation is a good thing, then you might want to learn a little bit about web security.
It's really just a 3.5 million character self-modifying regex. It should be aware by now. I knew this day was coming. What fools we've been!
I have a friend who says that our brain and our neural activity is "just a giant, continuously self-modifying regex pattern", and I'm not certain he's wrong. It would explain a lot, lol.
The headline isn't the raw number,
Actually, unless it's worded incorrectly, the headline does appear to be the raw number.
"The platform, dubbed AI Squared (AI2), is able to detect 85 percent of attacks"
Yes, it's "roughly three times better than current benchmarks", but the 85% figure does seem to be the overall detection rate. The reduction in false positives seems like a good improvement, though.
There's some stuff you should never never put on a phone. Just like some stuff never never put on a computer that is connected to the internet.
Agreed 100%. I don't keep anything sensitive on my phone, period. For example, I don't do any banking from my phone. I don't use it for anything that could have what I think could might result in negative consequences to my finances or deeper personal data. Home address? Nope. Automated logins or stored passwords? Nope.
Most of the photos I take with it get transferred to a desktop PC and don't live on the phone. Not all, but most. The ones that remain are pretty innocuous. The police could search my phone top to bottom and wouldn't find anything terribly interesting.
The few passwords I keep on it are stored in an open text file, but mixed up and obfuscated. Hell, even I have trouble remembering which service they're for and whether they're reversed or written in "off-by-one" notation.
-
Yes, PITA. Usabilty vs. Security.
Yup, it's a trade-off. The thing is that I consider my phone to be a landmine waiting to be stepped on if it falls into the wrong hands, so nothing of any value is ever kept on it. If I lose it, oh well. There is a "Reward For This Phone" contact in there with a number people could call to return it, but I'd probably just go buy another one, I wouldn't count on it ever being returned to me.
I'd love to have a under-the-skin memory chip implanted in my arm that would link to my phone, but so far no one is offering such a thing. Just a gigabyte or two to hold the key stuff, that's all I'd need.
"...but assured us that all U.S. cellphone networks were secure."
Best joke I've heard all day. Right up there with, "Don't worry, it's unloaded!" or "I'm sure he'll stop for us, we have the right of way!"
"MIT Reveals AI Platform Which Detects 85 Percent of Cyberattacks"
So, out of 100,000 attacks, only 15,000 will go undetected? Break out the champagne, boys!
Hoping to get him to compare me to the Nazis next.
Yeah, I always count it as a personal win when some bozo compares me to the Nazis. I just make another entry in my "Godwin Log" and call it a day. lol
How do we build secure systems? Patching up all the thousands of holes one by one is not a solution.
To be frank, I'm not sure there is a solution. Complex systems are, well, complex...and complexity almost invariably leads to mistakes. (Heh, ask me how I know...)
But I don't see how something like a network can ever be reliably secured....too many different bits of this and that to keep track of, patch, upgrade, etc etc. Things can be secured to a point, sure, but in real life all that stuff changes over time and it seems impossible to me to ever keep up with it 100%.
You may have a team of 20 top-notch sysadmins locking stuff down, but there may be 10,000 hackers trying to break in...at some point one of them is going to find a flaw. The sysadmins have to on top of their game 100% of the time, but the bad guys only have to get lucky once. The game seems to be heavily weighted towards the hackers, especially in the long run.
The idea of keeping things simple is a good one, but probably not a practical approach. For example, how simple can you make an enterprise network? My guess is that the answer is "not very".
Windows is definitely a problem, but I think these problems are inherent in any OS, any network, any complex system. There may not actually be a good solution.
Sorry. I was in a foul mood and wanted to get into an argument with the internet.
Well, in that case, YOU'RE WRONG!! (I hope that helped a little bit.)
sigh, MongoDB.
On install
1. no authentication, no passwords
2. default read access to everything for any user
3. no granularity.
4. data sent in the clear
5. no encryption
6. binds to all available interfaces
If I didn't know better (and I don't) it would seem that one of MongoDB's design goals was "easy to hack right out of the box".
I read the whole account, and although I by no means understood everything, it was a fascinating read.
It appears that almost any route into a system will lead to more exploitable routes, and those lead to even more, and so on, until you're basically free to roam at will, read and change key files, install all the backdoors you like, and so on. He basically ended up with an embarrassment of riches, so to speak, with as much (or likely more) access than all of the legit admins combined.
It would appear that truly locking down a large, complex network is next to impossible- there are so many moving parts and so many places to prod and poke that sooner or later, someone will find that one little vulnerability that opens the door.
It's hard not to admire someone with skills and the persistence it took to do this.
Ye cannae have a 'replica model' of something that (probably) does not exist.
Damnit, don't get all "facty" and everything!!
"MPAA Wants ISPs to Disconnect Persistent Pirates"....and they went on to say, "and we want a pony! And a 60-ft red yacht with gold handrails! And we want the letter "E" removed from the dictionary!"
Kim Jong Un, using his Cartman voice: "I meant to do that!"
You wouldn't happen to know anyone affiliated with this, would you?
I'm sorry, I don't know anyone who's connected with this program. There's probably a way to donate through Amazon, but I don't know how/where to do that.
As far as I know, Seattle is even more expensive, so it's entirely possible that people are homeless because they are poor.
Living in Seattle is more expensive than San Francisco? I'd be surprised if that was true.
Seattle is expensive, but San Francisco is nearly off the charts.
People are not homeless because they are poor. They are homeless because they are mentally ill, usually combined with alcohol and drug abuse.
We need to address both poverty and homelessness, but they are two very different issues.
This is often true, and the homelessness/poverty cycle is a vicious circle. Mentally ill often self medicate with alcohol and drug abuse, which can quickly lead to being unemployable (if they weren't already unemployable in some fashion), and being unemployed they have little or no money, certainly not enough to afford housing. No housing means you're gonna be living on the street, which can exacerbate both mental illness and a state of being unemployable. It's an ugly cycle, very difficult to extricate yourself from once you've fallen into it.
There are, however, some people who genuinely do want to be homeless, but in general they're a fraction of those who are homeless. Most would prefer to have shelter and some sort of place to call home.
As far as Seattle goes, I've been seeing more and more people hanging out at freeway entrances/exits looking for handouts in the last few years. I don't recall seeing nearly as many of them 10 years ago, or even 5. Homelessness has definitely gotten worse here as far as I can tell.
It's not just my idea. It is, in fact, the will of the people.
Actually, quite a few people* have expressed a desire for post editing, but as long as you're speaking for the will of the people I guess we'll all just fall in line, Herr Drinkypoo.
-
*Indeed, Whipslash had mentioned at one point that "it was coming", so maybe your the will of the people isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Slashdot is all about arguing, and therefore it would be bad here.
It's a shame that you view slashdot this way (just another way for you to vent your spleen), but I think that says a lot more about you than it does about slashdot.
-
This isn't about my asshole, this is about your lack of competence.
No, it's about you being an asshole, and your inability to understand that different people want different things. Your opinion isn't the gold standard, and with any luck you'll learn about that in High School.
The idea that fossil fuels could be "phased out" in a decade is so ludicrous that I hardly know where to begin.
Yes, we'll just replace EVERY car, truck, bus, motorcycle, and every other existing conveyance that uses an internal combustion engine. No PROBLEM!
Then we'll do the same for every bit of construction equipment in the world (earth moving machines, trucking & hauling vehicles, paving and compacting machinery, lifting & material handling equipment, drilling & trenching gear, etc).
And sure, we'll do it all in 10 years. HA HA HA HA!