I think the social engineering, phishing, and attachments could be solved, in organizations that made it a high enough priority, i.e., ahead of being nice to employees or not spending a lot of time and money on it. It breaks down into two steps. First, train everyone very well in how to recognize and avoid the threats. Second, have a dedicated tiger team continuously try to break security by sending phishing emails, emails with pseudo-malicious attachments, and trying to social engineer the employees. First time a given person screws up and breaks security, they go on the public list of screwups seen by everyone, it goes into their record and affects future promotions, and they have to attend training again. Second time, a formal warning, and more training. Third time, clean out your desk.
Not that real cracking attempts wouldn't slip through now and then; but it would certainly make the organization a much harder target.
Problem is, most organizations don't perceive it as important enough to go to these lengths. Intelligence agencies, sure (excepting the perpetually-clueless DHS); probably a lot more draconian than this. Military and FBI, too. Police? Probably not, they don't have the funding, for one thing. Corporate? Hardly ever.
Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?
Oh yes, because you know we all want to get out of jury duty. No participation in what the government does for me, thanks! Let 'em do whatever they want!
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's free software. If enough people don't want to move to Python 3, they can always fork their own project from 2.7. GvR and his followers, however, have decided to focus their efforts on Python 3, leaving the Python 2 cruft behind, and I don't think they're going to change their minds at this point.
I think we're overlooking a very important reason for this sort of screwup. Yes, they're incompetent. And yes, it's theater. But consider this: if security measures are ineffective, sooner or later there'll be another successful attack. And what happens then?
I wonder how well this would work for storing energy, say for a self-sufficient farm powered by a windmill, solar cells, or whatever. Currently such a setup would use a battery, not terribly efficient. With this, you could use the windmill or whatever to pump water upwards into a tank, then when generation falls off, the water flows downward through this gizmo.
Bad argument, for two reasons. First, imagine trying to get through to anyone but a geek with it. Second, one could also convert computer viruses, kiddie porn, or lists of stolen credit card numbers to prime numbers, but this does not make the laws against possessing them nonsensical.
Yeah, something like that happened with Kleck. He's a liberal and he expected to find that defensive uses were far outweighed by criminal uses and accidents. He was kind of upset when he found the opposite:)
The first book I read on this subject is A Well-Regulated Militia by William Weir. Does a good job of debunking the extremism of both sides.
The second one I read (but not completely, due to lack of time) is Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Kates and Kleck. Kates strikes me as somewhat biased against control, but at least he backs it up with facts (though I haven't checked them yet). Kleck is much more balanced.
Kleck's Point Blank and Targeting Guns have been cited as the definitive scholarly works on the subject. Haven't read either one myself.
Wright and Rossi's Under the Gun is also said to be very good.
There was an article on K5 about this a few months ago. Can't find it right now, their server is having trouble. K5 would probably be a better place to ask this question.
The Post article mentions the Human Research Protections Advisory Committee, which oversees all kinds of research with human subjects, including gene therapy. The Gelsinger reference is the only reference to gene therapy specifically in the entire article. Clearly, the article is not discussing gene therapy in particular, but rather research upon human subjects in general.
The Slashdot article, on the other hand, alludes to "regulations in gene-therapy" but makes no mention of the broader context. My point stands. This is careless writing.
There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even begin to start.
Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?
Sounds like Perdo knows what s/he's talking about, but I can't help wondering why someone with so much electronics knowledge thinks "solder" is spelled "soldier"...
Slashdot Mirror
Stories like "The Right to Read" and "Printcrime" seem more prophetic all the time. Good on Graf_chokolo for sticking it to the bastards.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20010320
I think the social engineering, phishing, and attachments could be solved, in organizations that made it a high enough priority, i.e., ahead of being nice to employees or not spending a lot of time and money on it. It breaks down into two steps. First, train everyone very well in how to recognize and avoid the threats. Second, have a dedicated tiger team continuously try to break security by sending phishing emails, emails with pseudo-malicious attachments, and trying to social engineer the employees. First time a given person screws up and breaks security, they go on the public list of screwups seen by everyone, it goes into their record and affects future promotions, and they have to attend training again. Second time, a formal warning, and more training. Third time, clean out your desk.
Not that real cracking attempts wouldn't slip through now and then; but it would certainly make the organization a much harder target.
Problem is, most organizations don't perceive it as important enough to go to these lengths. Intelligence agencies, sure (excepting the perpetually-clueless DHS); probably a lot more draconian than this. Military and FBI, too. Police? Probably not, they don't have the funding, for one thing. Corporate? Hardly ever.
Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?
Oh yes, because you know we all want to get out of jury duty. No participation in what the government does for me, thanks! Let 'em do whatever they want!
Well, it's free software. If enough people don't want to move to Python 3, they can always fork their own project from 2.7. GvR and his followers, however, have decided to focus their efforts on Python 3, leaving the Python 2 cruft behind, and I don't think they're going to change their minds at this point.
...imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
I think you are overlooking some of the things that happened in response to 9/11...Patriot Act...extraordinary renditions...Gitmo...
So, what happens if there's another major attack? Suspension of habeas corpus? Martial law?
I think we're overlooking a very important reason for this sort of screwup. Yes, they're incompetent. And yes, it's theater. But consider this: if security measures are ineffective, sooner or later there'll be another successful attack. And what happens then?
I wonder how well this would work for storing energy, say for a self-sufficient farm powered by a windmill, solar cells, or whatever. Currently such a setup would use a battery, not terribly efficient. With this, you could use the windmill or whatever to pump water upwards into a tank, then when generation falls off, the water flows downward through this gizmo.
Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Fud, fud, fud, fud,
Wonderful fud,
Glorious fud...
It's already been in use for XXXIII years...
Bad argument, for two reasons. First, imagine trying to get through to anyone but a geek with it. Second, one could also convert computer viruses, kiddie porn, or lists of stolen credit card numbers to prime numbers, but this does not make the laws against possessing them nonsensical.
A story...on Slashdot...about a patent...that's legitimate?
...people who should know better will stop using Microsoft-style smart quotes that come out as '?' on non-Microsoft browsers.
Yeah, something like that happened with Kleck. He's a liberal and he expected to find that defensive uses were far outweighed by criminal uses and accidents. He was kind of upset when he found the opposite :)
The second one I read (but not completely, due to lack of time) is Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Kates and Kleck. Kates strikes me as somewhat biased against control, but at least he backs it up with facts (though I haven't checked them yet). Kleck is much more balanced.
Kleck's Point Blank and Targeting Guns have been cited as the definitive scholarly works on the subject. Haven't read either one myself.
Wright and Rossi's Under the Gun is also said to be very good.
There was an article on K5 about this a few months ago. Can't find it right now, their server is having trouble. K5 would probably be a better place to ask this question.
HTH.
Mainframes are mostly harmless.
The Slashdot article, on the other hand, alludes to "regulations in gene-therapy" but makes no mention of the broader context. My point stands. This is careless writing.
Actually, giant letters of flame spelling out "We apologize for the inconvenience".
Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...
Well, we've heard from the libertarian lunatic fringe. Anyone else?
Well, I wish someone would. I'm moving to California in three weeks, and they require a thumbprint on your driver's license. I'm not comfortable with this, and I don't know what law enforcement purpose it serves, but on the other hand I really haven't been able to think of any concrete objections to it. How could it be abused? In what way is my privacy harmed? Anyone?
Sounds like Perdo knows what s/he's talking about, but I can't help wondering why someone with so much electronics knowledge thinks "solder" is spelled "soldier"...
Why is this classed as science? It's not science. It's technology.
"Shut up."