Also not to be overlooked is the impact of geology on the climate. As land masses drifted they altered oceans and currents. As they smashed into each other, they gave rise to mountains and other activity that impact the carbon cycle. The climate is an incredibly complex model for which we have limited data. All of this may mean that as much as we all may be arguing about how to save our home, our home may be telling us that were are no longer welcomed.
Actually, I took it to mean "Think for yourself." It is a bit unsettling these days how much young people are dependent on outside input to inform their own opinions and interests.
As long as people are free to work (or not work) and free to choose their professions and education, there will be a disparate distribution of wealth based on demand for their labor and skill.
Consider this: PHP relies on an interpreter, written in C. Does that mean every PHP vulnerability is in fact a C one? This is just another post that seems to mix the apples and oranges of differing languages, assuming them to be equal.
The problem isn't the Russians or Facebook. It's the lot of us stupid Americans. Seriously, what's the difference whether the propaganda comes from the Russians or the major parties? If it is a Democrat or Republican spewing crap we call it a "debate," but if it is another country, we call it a felony?
Some interesting research, and while I agree with the premise that if a site can email you your password, it has substandard security, it does not mean those passwords are stored in plaintext. It's very possible that the passwords are stored in some encrypted form and the process for emailing the password has the resources to decrypt the password. Still, that is only marginally better than storing the password in plaintext. The issue is not how the password is stored (encrypted or not); it is the fact that the password is stored at all. Good systems use a hash of the password. While it is a common misconception, hashing is not encrypting. It is the irreversible conversion of data into a unique representation of that data. This where the regulators fall down. They mistake hashing for encrypting. Even then they fail understand the value of salting a hash (hint, it has nothing to do with table-top seasoning).
The problem is most of the "ethnicity" labels are rooted in some form of ignorance. For examples, the three terms The Register implies are legit categories of ethnicity:
- If you read the history of "Caucasian," it was one of a tri-chotomy ethnic terms, the other two of which are roundly dismissed as offensive today.
- The labels "black" and "white," besides being remarkably poor representations of skin tone, are rooted in a dichotomy that traces to the early days of supremacist thinking.
- As for "indigenous," some consider it a white-washing (pun intended) of the many distinct cultures that inhabited present-day Canada and the United States before the age of European settlement. While it may be more acceptable than the malaprop "Indian," like "black" and "white" it does not describe an ethnicity.
Truthfully, for most people, the most accurate description of their ethnic background is "Other." We all come from a differing nexus of our DNA and heritage, and to assume one is like the other simply due to skin tone or region of origin is a remarkably simplistic, and offensive, view of culture.
I believe the prevailing notion around themohaline circulation (THC) is that it is slowing down. As such, if it slows, we'll actually see global cooling - think of a forced hot air heating system and someone blocks the return; it might be trying to crank out the heat, but with no air circulation, your house gets cooler. This could be evidence that the earth, after some 4.5 billion years, has developed methods of self regulation. The problem is we humans might not fit into the earth's plans.
The problem with all this is we are looking at a fairly narrow window of time. We are comparing data from the 1870s and 1990s when by most assessments we're dealing with a system that can take 1000 years to go through one cycle. Is this something left from the "Little Ice Age" - and perhaps an indicator that the THC is an ice age catalyst - or is this the first indicator of next Ice Age?
I think DDG search is actually very good. To analogize, the problem is this: Google is fast-food, and everyone loves how fast-food is yummy and convenient. Hence, when it comes to alternatives, we compare everything to the fast food rather than realizing that maybe the fast food isn't as good as we think it is.
For the sake of argument, DSL has always been considered common carrier - that it is to say it has always been subject to the FCC's neutrality rules. So if you believe in net neutrality, by all means, use that DSL line. On the contrary, broadband ISPs coming over fiber, coax, satellite, microwave, etc., up until 2015 weren't considered common carriers and are no longer considered common carrier. Which category seems to have undergone the most progress?
Let put this another way. Bad people exist, that is a given. You have bad CEOs running ISPs, but isn't also likely that you will have bad people who become FCC commissioners? So would you rather be subject to the bad people who are FCC commissioners, who have no vested interest in whether you get quality Internet service, or would you rather be subject to the bad CEO who at least has to work a little bit to earn your and other subscriber's monthly dollars?
What net neutrality essentially permitted was the FCC to regulate broadband ISPs by moving them from information services (largely unregulated) to common carriers (regulated). What would prevent the FCC from facilitating any of the A-D concerns you raise? An easy one to pick on is B - censorship. Consider that in 2004, CBS was fined $550,000 for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe" malfunction. Can you imagine where this could go with ISPs? You raise a good point about cord-cutting but you might not realize that it inadvertently is an argument against net neutrality. Netflix and other streaming services are categorized as Title I services by the FCC. They are information services (i.e. not regulated). Were they instead treated like broadcast networks (i.e. Title II), I think you are right, they wouldn't exist.
Ultimately Congress has abdicated it's law making role because, heaven forbid, a lawmaker take a position and risk losing his or her seat. As such, increasingly we have seen legislation by executive action whether directly or indirectly through agencies like the FCC. Net Neutrality was a series of rules facilitated by a 3-2 vote of FCC in 2015. It was basically three people changing two decades of policy that had been in existence under both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congresses. Big whoop, in 2017, we have a 3-2 vote to repeal. This is Congressional politics descending to federal agencies. Flipping and flopping with whoever is in control. Never getting anything done. We don't have a democracy in the U.S. it's an idiocracy. This is like going to a baseball game, a fight breaks out between the two teams, a player whips a baseball at an opposing player, who ducks, and somehow the two teams are able to convince the umpire and fans to debate whether it should be called a ball or strike - like somehow how their chaos, immaturity, and fighting are legitimate. If you really want change, stop voting for the major parties.
It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.
You're making Pai's point. Congress should be the one who determines the extent to which ISPs should be regulated - not the FCC. Arguably, Congress already weighed in on this with the 1996 Telecommunications Act when it left broadband ISPs out of the category of "common carrier" (i.e. Title II) and subject to neutrality regulation. It was only in 2008 that the FCC, acting on its own, muscled in and told Comcast to stop throttling traffic. Comcast sued the FCC and won under the premise that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate broadband ISPs. So after being taken to task by an appeals court, the FCC responds in 2010 by adopting formal rules for regulating ISPs. This time Verizon sues them on the same basis - the FCC does not have the authority to adopt such rules. An appeals court again rules that the FCC is in the wrong because it is treating broadband ISPs as common carriers when in fact they have never been categorized as such. So in 2015, the FCC figures it out; it will just unilaterally categorize all ISPs as common carriers and thus subject to neutrality principles. This wasn't a Congressional Act. This was three (out of five) unelected commissioners that most Americans had never heard of voting to give themselves pretty significant regulatory power. In 2017, now with Pai as chair, they vote 3 to 2 repeal the rules.
All that the net neutrality debate has proven is that most Americans know little about Internet traffic and even less about their own government. Listen, if you love the Democrat-Republican blood bath that we are treated to hourly, by all means, continue to shout and stomp and advocate for more political fighting. If you believe in solving problems, I suggest picking up a copy of Magruder's American Government and walking into your city or town hall on occasion. You do realize, for example, that all that coax and fiber strung on the poles in your city or town is only there through a municipal contract with these service providers. And just like there are alternatives to Democrats and Republicans, there are alternatives to Comcast and Verizon. Sure, satellite, WiMax and other options may be expensive, but that is economics; sometimes you have to pay for quality. But the last thing any rational American should want is giving more power to a federal government that functions with all the maturity of two spoiled, out-of-touch brats constantly having a slap fight.
I think the report misses the point. It's a bit like saying because more people are getting the flu shot these days, we don't need to wash our hands as much. The opportunity for attack over a public network has only increased. Sure HTTPS has reduced a subset, but it is far from an absolute cure-all. The folks most likely to trust a public access point are also the people most likely to ignore a certificate error for example. WPA2-PSK was designed to be used in a trusted environment (i.e. a home network). It was not designed where strangers would share the same the network - as it is done in every coffee shop, conference, etc. Off the bat, the moment you are on a shared network, you expose your device to scanning and attack. More you cannot know whether you have connected to a real access point or an attacker's laptop - unless you are talking certain WPA2-Enterprise options, there is no mutual authentication. Even when seeming to use HTTPS, there can be plenty of non-HTTPS packets/data that will leak. Further HTTPS is not like a VPN encrypting all network traffic. It just handles a specific browser-to-server subset. Yes, on one hand things are better, but on the other, WiFi is so much more prevalent today - we have WiFi enabled diapers for cripes sake - that the overall vulnerability of the average wireless user has only increased.
Nye is entitled to his opinions and ranting. However, the fact that mainstream media continues to lend credence to these views only underscores how much our respect for - nevermind understanding of - science has atrophied. Nye was a mechanical engineer who decided to try his hand at comedy. He became a kids show persona. If wearing a lab coat makes him some sort of expert, then maybe next week we can have the cast of Chicago Med lecturing us about cancer.
In every middle school, you have the librarians-turned-media-specialists trying to teach kids cybersecurity by reviewing things like "privacy" settings on Facebook. It's time we start telling kids to ignore such rubbish and assume everything they post, email, text etc. will someday be public. Once we get that point across to kids and their parents, not only will we have a safer Internet but a more civil one.
The referenced ZDNet article is notably sparse on details. This seems more like Microsoft trying to spin the negative that Windows Defender has had several vulnerabilities that in the grand scheme may have more weakened user's security than enhanced it.
Let's strip away some pieces of this, however:
1) a "sandbox" is like saying "firewall" - it's a broad concept. The fact that Microsoft and the press are heralding this "advancement" without any supporting detail is revealing in and of itself as to how quickly we run toward and are duped by jargon.
2) The notion of using a sandbox relates to code execution. So the scary part is rather than preventing execution of suspect code, this sandboxing may in fact be enabling the execution but in an isolated part of the system. This is akin to believing you can train velociraptors.
3) Sandboxes require virtualization and that means a drain on resources. Even the idea of using some sort of application container, while more efficient, will be resource intensive. Moreover, however, without fully mimicking the WIndows 10 OS, there is just too much opportunity for malware writers to detect when their code is being run in a sandbox, and as such, have the code lie dormant, escaping detection.
Perhaps it will be a step forward, but it would seem a more practical approach that rather than creating more software to compensate for the 661 currently known vulnerabilities in Windows 10, Microsoft would work on patching the OS.
Maybe in some countries, but under our system of government, there is no such thing as a "national election." The president is elected by the states - not the people. While there is a convention of a national popular vote, that each state then uses to determine how to distribute its electoral votes (but not consistently among all 50 mind you), it is a process determined by state legislatures. Of course we are past the tipping point in the U.S. where very few people understand the design of the government. So by all means I expect I fully expect Congress to do something stupid and wasteful like attempt to impose a national election system on everyone. To boot, I fully expect Congress to require the thing run Windows NT.
As a Massachusetts resident I can assure you of three things:
1) There may be four people in the state who actually understand what Net Neutrality is
2) None of them are members of our legislature
3) We have far more problems - not the least of which is physical traffic in the state nevermind Internet - that our lawmakers should focus on.
The Republican-Democrat animosity in this country is so bad that even in a rampantly Democrat state, we get ourselves distracted by what is happening in Washington.
First, let's qualify the statement. It's that no Google employee has apparently been successfully phished for a work account. It's not that Google employees haven't been fished for any account. Bear in mind this claim is a bit like a company that has switched from using office keys to RFID cards saying that "no one has lost their keys or had them stolen." Of course not; they don't use them any more. However, these tokens are not necessarily two-factor authentication (at least that is not detailed in the reporting). They are still a single factor (a token the user possesses - again like a physical key and lock). Perhaps, the USB keys are encrypted, requiring a user to enter a password to decrypt the data on the USB key that is then used to authenticate. However, this is still not two-factor authentication. It is authenticating to two different systems (the USB key and Google corporate system).
If you read the story it should become evident that this is is just masked marketing for one of Armis' products. Essentially, the accusation is that if you have a device that is accessible by a Web interface on your computer, and someone gets access to your computer/browser, well lo and behold, they can get access to the devices. Newsflash: billions of cars are vulnerable to attack -- if someone steals your keys. This is just marketing to sell people crap to make up for the crap (IoT) they bought without understanding what it did or how to secure it.
Why do we want primary and secondary pupils to learn how to write software??
Perhaps the answer to the question is that many of the people pushing these techno-ed initiatives and the educators championing them don't fully understand technology to begin with. This isn't to say they lack proficiency with the tools (although many do), but technology ultimately is about problem solving - not solution creating. With due respect to my fellow technologists, many of us are so freaking obsessed with our mastery of techno trivia, we can't see the forest for the trees. Worst of all, however, we grab our educator and policy maker friends and press their faces to the trees too and say "See, isn't this really cool? We should be teaching kids how to identify all these pieces of bark!" Technology essentially enhances a process through speed, scale or automation. If you have a crappy process, when you add technology, all you do is accelerate the speed or scale of that crap distribution or have less people to intervene and fix it. The best technologists have broad skills and experience. Not only do they understand technology, they understand the people - excuse me the "users" - who use technology. Believing that teaching coding leads to good technologists makes as much sense as believing that good architects come from teaching kids how to hammer nails all day.
And one could argue that the high failure rate of software today indicates that whatever these kids are learning - in high school and college - isn't translating to quality software. I think that is the underlying issue. Textbooks might not be appealing to students (or teachers) who want to "do," but far too often we see developer running before crawling. There is a lot in that textbook that they need to learn still.
What we're witnessing is after decades of presidents playing legislator through executive action, Congress has decided to try to play president through legislative action. Inevitably our system of government has unraveled to the point where left seems right, up appears to be down, and something coined "net neutrality" really isn't all that neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
Also not to be overlooked is the impact of geology on the climate. As land masses drifted they altered oceans and currents. As they smashed into each other, they gave rise to mountains and other activity that impact the carbon cycle. The climate is an incredibly complex model for which we have limited data. All of this may mean that as much as we all may be arguing about how to save our home, our home may be telling us that were are no longer welcomed.
Actually, I took it to mean "Think for yourself." It is a bit unsettling these days how much young people are dependent on outside input to inform their own opinions and interests.
As long as people are free to work (or not work) and free to choose their professions and education, there will be a disparate distribution of wealth based on demand for their labor and skill.
Consider this: PHP relies on an interpreter, written in C. Does that mean every PHP vulnerability is in fact a C one? This is just another post that seems to mix the apples and oranges of differing languages, assuming them to be equal.
The problem isn't the Russians or Facebook. It's the lot of us stupid Americans. Seriously, what's the difference whether the propaganda comes from the Russians or the major parties? If it is a Democrat or Republican spewing crap we call it a "debate," but if it is another country, we call it a felony?
Some interesting research, and while I agree with the premise that if a site can email you your password, it has substandard security, it does not mean those passwords are stored in plaintext. It's very possible that the passwords are stored in some encrypted form and the process for emailing the password has the resources to decrypt the password. Still, that is only marginally better than storing the password in plaintext. The issue is not how the password is stored (encrypted or not); it is the fact that the password is stored at all. Good systems use a hash of the password. While it is a common misconception, hashing is not encrypting. It is the irreversible conversion of data into a unique representation of that data. This where the regulators fall down. They mistake hashing for encrypting. Even then they fail understand the value of salting a hash (hint, it has nothing to do with table-top seasoning).
The problem is most of the "ethnicity" labels are rooted in some form of ignorance. For examples, the three terms The Register implies are legit categories of ethnicity: - If you read the history of "Caucasian," it was one of a tri-chotomy ethnic terms, the other two of which are roundly dismissed as offensive today. - The labels "black" and "white," besides being remarkably poor representations of skin tone, are rooted in a dichotomy that traces to the early days of supremacist thinking. - As for "indigenous," some consider it a white-washing (pun intended) of the many distinct cultures that inhabited present-day Canada and the United States before the age of European settlement. While it may be more acceptable than the malaprop "Indian," like "black" and "white" it does not describe an ethnicity. Truthfully, for most people, the most accurate description of their ethnic background is "Other." We all come from a differing nexus of our DNA and heritage, and to assume one is like the other simply due to skin tone or region of origin is a remarkably simplistic, and offensive, view of culture.
I believe the prevailing notion around themohaline circulation (THC) is that it is slowing down. As such, if it slows, we'll actually see global cooling - think of a forced hot air heating system and someone blocks the return; it might be trying to crank out the heat, but with no air circulation, your house gets cooler. This could be evidence that the earth, after some 4.5 billion years, has developed methods of self regulation. The problem is we humans might not fit into the earth's plans. The problem with all this is we are looking at a fairly narrow window of time. We are comparing data from the 1870s and 1990s when by most assessments we're dealing with a system that can take 1000 years to go through one cycle. Is this something left from the "Little Ice Age" - and perhaps an indicator that the THC is an ice age catalyst - or is this the first indicator of next Ice Age?
I think DDG search is actually very good. To analogize, the problem is this: Google is fast-food, and everyone loves how fast-food is yummy and convenient. Hence, when it comes to alternatives, we compare everything to the fast food rather than realizing that maybe the fast food isn't as good as we think it is.
Exactly, this harkens back to the days when "cookies" got such a bad name that everyone was blocking them, not understanding what they did.
Let put this another way. Bad people exist, that is a given. You have bad CEOs running ISPs, but isn't also likely that you will have bad people who become FCC commissioners? So would you rather be subject to the bad people who are FCC commissioners, who have no vested interest in whether you get quality Internet service, or would you rather be subject to the bad CEO who at least has to work a little bit to earn your and other subscriber's monthly dollars?
What net neutrality essentially permitted was the FCC to regulate broadband ISPs by moving them from information services (largely unregulated) to common carriers (regulated). What would prevent the FCC from facilitating any of the A-D concerns you raise? An easy one to pick on is B - censorship. Consider that in 2004, CBS was fined $550,000 for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe" malfunction. Can you imagine where this could go with ISPs? You raise a good point about cord-cutting but you might not realize that it inadvertently is an argument against net neutrality. Netflix and other streaming services are categorized as Title I services by the FCC. They are information services (i.e. not regulated). Were they instead treated like broadcast networks (i.e. Title II), I think you are right, they wouldn't exist.
Ultimately Congress has abdicated it's law making role because, heaven forbid, a lawmaker take a position and risk losing his or her seat. As such, increasingly we have seen legislation by executive action whether directly or indirectly through agencies like the FCC. Net Neutrality was a series of rules facilitated by a 3-2 vote of FCC in 2015. It was basically three people changing two decades of policy that had been in existence under both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congresses. Big whoop, in 2017, we have a 3-2 vote to repeal. This is Congressional politics descending to federal agencies. Flipping and flopping with whoever is in control. Never getting anything done. We don't have a democracy in the U.S. it's an idiocracy. This is like going to a baseball game, a fight breaks out between the two teams, a player whips a baseball at an opposing player, who ducks, and somehow the two teams are able to convince the umpire and fans to debate whether it should be called a ball or strike - like somehow how their chaos, immaturity, and fighting are legitimate. If you really want change, stop voting for the major parties.
It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.
You're making Pai's point. Congress should be the one who determines the extent to which ISPs should be regulated - not the FCC. Arguably, Congress already weighed in on this with the 1996 Telecommunications Act when it left broadband ISPs out of the category of "common carrier" (i.e. Title II) and subject to neutrality regulation. It was only in 2008 that the FCC, acting on its own, muscled in and told Comcast to stop throttling traffic. Comcast sued the FCC and won under the premise that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate broadband ISPs. So after being taken to task by an appeals court, the FCC responds in 2010 by adopting formal rules for regulating ISPs. This time Verizon sues them on the same basis - the FCC does not have the authority to adopt such rules. An appeals court again rules that the FCC is in the wrong because it is treating broadband ISPs as common carriers when in fact they have never been categorized as such. So in 2015, the FCC figures it out; it will just unilaterally categorize all ISPs as common carriers and thus subject to neutrality principles. This wasn't a Congressional Act. This was three (out of five) unelected commissioners that most Americans had never heard of voting to give themselves pretty significant regulatory power. In 2017, now with Pai as chair, they vote 3 to 2 repeal the rules.
All that the net neutrality debate has proven is that most Americans know little about Internet traffic and even less about their own government. Listen, if you love the Democrat-Republican blood bath that we are treated to hourly, by all means, continue to shout and stomp and advocate for more political fighting. If you believe in solving problems, I suggest picking up a copy of Magruder's American Government and walking into your city or town hall on occasion. You do realize, for example, that all that coax and fiber strung on the poles in your city or town is only there through a municipal contract with these service providers. And just like there are alternatives to Democrats and Republicans, there are alternatives to Comcast and Verizon. Sure, satellite, WiMax and other options may be expensive, but that is economics; sometimes you have to pay for quality. But the last thing any rational American should want is giving more power to a federal government that functions with all the maturity of two spoiled, out-of-touch brats constantly having a slap fight.
I think the report misses the point. It's a bit like saying because more people are getting the flu shot these days, we don't need to wash our hands as much. The opportunity for attack over a public network has only increased. Sure HTTPS has reduced a subset, but it is far from an absolute cure-all. The folks most likely to trust a public access point are also the people most likely to ignore a certificate error for example. WPA2-PSK was designed to be used in a trusted environment (i.e. a home network). It was not designed where strangers would share the same the network - as it is done in every coffee shop, conference, etc. Off the bat, the moment you are on a shared network, you expose your device to scanning and attack. More you cannot know whether you have connected to a real access point or an attacker's laptop - unless you are talking certain WPA2-Enterprise options, there is no mutual authentication. Even when seeming to use HTTPS, there can be plenty of non-HTTPS packets/data that will leak. Further HTTPS is not like a VPN encrypting all network traffic. It just handles a specific browser-to-server subset. Yes, on one hand things are better, but on the other, WiFi is so much more prevalent today - we have WiFi enabled diapers for cripes sake - that the overall vulnerability of the average wireless user has only increased.
Nye is entitled to his opinions and ranting. However, the fact that mainstream media continues to lend credence to these views only underscores how much our respect for - nevermind understanding of - science has atrophied. Nye was a mechanical engineer who decided to try his hand at comedy. He became a kids show persona. If wearing a lab coat makes him some sort of expert, then maybe next week we can have the cast of Chicago Med lecturing us about cancer.
In every middle school, you have the librarians-turned-media-specialists trying to teach kids cybersecurity by reviewing things like "privacy" settings on Facebook. It's time we start telling kids to ignore such rubbish and assume everything they post, email, text etc. will someday be public. Once we get that point across to kids and their parents, not only will we have a safer Internet but a more civil one.
The referenced ZDNet article is notably sparse on details. This seems more like Microsoft trying to spin the negative that Windows Defender has had several vulnerabilities that in the grand scheme may have more weakened user's security than enhanced it. Let's strip away some pieces of this, however: 1) a "sandbox" is like saying "firewall" - it's a broad concept. The fact that Microsoft and the press are heralding this "advancement" without any supporting detail is revealing in and of itself as to how quickly we run toward and are duped by jargon. 2) The notion of using a sandbox relates to code execution. So the scary part is rather than preventing execution of suspect code, this sandboxing may in fact be enabling the execution but in an isolated part of the system. This is akin to believing you can train velociraptors. 3) Sandboxes require virtualization and that means a drain on resources. Even the idea of using some sort of application container, while more efficient, will be resource intensive. Moreover, however, without fully mimicking the WIndows 10 OS, there is just too much opportunity for malware writers to detect when their code is being run in a sandbox, and as such, have the code lie dormant, escaping detection. Perhaps it will be a step forward, but it would seem a more practical approach that rather than creating more software to compensate for the 661 currently known vulnerabilities in Windows 10, Microsoft would work on patching the OS.
Maybe in some countries, but under our system of government, there is no such thing as a "national election." The president is elected by the states - not the people. While there is a convention of a national popular vote, that each state then uses to determine how to distribute its electoral votes (but not consistently among all 50 mind you), it is a process determined by state legislatures. Of course we are past the tipping point in the U.S. where very few people understand the design of the government. So by all means I expect I fully expect Congress to do something stupid and wasteful like attempt to impose a national election system on everyone. To boot, I fully expect Congress to require the thing run Windows NT.
As a Massachusetts resident I can assure you of three things: 1) There may be four people in the state who actually understand what Net Neutrality is 2) None of them are members of our legislature 3) We have far more problems - not the least of which is physical traffic in the state nevermind Internet - that our lawmakers should focus on. The Republican-Democrat animosity in this country is so bad that even in a rampantly Democrat state, we get ourselves distracted by what is happening in Washington.
First, let's qualify the statement. It's that no Google employee has apparently been successfully phished for a work account. It's not that Google employees haven't been fished for any account. Bear in mind this claim is a bit like a company that has switched from using office keys to RFID cards saying that "no one has lost their keys or had them stolen." Of course not; they don't use them any more. However, these tokens are not necessarily two-factor authentication (at least that is not detailed in the reporting). They are still a single factor (a token the user possesses - again like a physical key and lock). Perhaps, the USB keys are encrypted, requiring a user to enter a password to decrypt the data on the USB key that is then used to authenticate. However, this is still not two-factor authentication. It is authenticating to two different systems (the USB key and Google corporate system).
If you read the story it should become evident that this is is just masked marketing for one of Armis' products. Essentially, the accusation is that if you have a device that is accessible by a Web interface on your computer, and someone gets access to your computer/browser, well lo and behold, they can get access to the devices. Newsflash: billions of cars are vulnerable to attack -- if someone steals your keys. This is just marketing to sell people crap to make up for the crap (IoT) they bought without understanding what it did or how to secure it.
Why do we want primary and secondary pupils to learn how to write software??
Perhaps the answer to the question is that many of the people pushing these techno-ed initiatives and the educators championing them don't fully understand technology to begin with. This isn't to say they lack proficiency with the tools (although many do), but technology ultimately is about problem solving - not solution creating. With due respect to my fellow technologists, many of us are so freaking obsessed with our mastery of techno trivia, we can't see the forest for the trees. Worst of all, however, we grab our educator and policy maker friends and press their faces to the trees too and say "See, isn't this really cool? We should be teaching kids how to identify all these pieces of bark!" Technology essentially enhances a process through speed, scale or automation. If you have a crappy process, when you add technology, all you do is accelerate the speed or scale of that crap distribution or have less people to intervene and fix it. The best technologists have broad skills and experience. Not only do they understand technology, they understand the people - excuse me the "users" - who use technology. Believing that teaching coding leads to good technologists makes as much sense as believing that good architects come from teaching kids how to hammer nails all day.
And one could argue that the high failure rate of software today indicates that whatever these kids are learning - in high school and college - isn't translating to quality software. I think that is the underlying issue. Textbooks might not be appealing to students (or teachers) who want to "do," but far too often we see developer running before crawling. There is a lot in that textbook that they need to learn still.
What we're witnessing is after decades of presidents playing legislator through executive action, Congress has decided to try to play president through legislative action. Inevitably our system of government has unraveled to the point where left seems right, up appears to be down, and something coined "net neutrality" really isn't all that neutral.