Ah, just give the security group more money. This doesn't take out the human element of an employee being lazy, reckless, etc. More money just sounds like a government solution, but I will concede this could help.
I hope you're kidding about the putting profits before user data. Of course they do. Are they not in the business of making money, not in the business of protecting data. I'm not saying they are or not, just lets be real... profit. Also, I'm not going to invest in a company if it's #1 priority is not to make profit. And please don't get righteous. If you want to open a business that's sole concern is security, go for it.
I also can't agree with the CEO learning from the last one. History proves that time and time again. Also, greed is a great motivator to make a buck.
I like how people get called names for post their opinion. Great thing is, It doesn't bother me. You have your opinion and I have mine. I of course think mine is better. I can't draw the same conclusions.
Wow someone has some real anger issues, and yes I am simple. I like it that way.
This is the reason I posted what I did. This is an emotional response to try and solve a problem. Let's look at this if it was deployed:
1) Company XYZ has a security breach. Data is compromised. Firstly, the CEO is packing his bags at this point (joke) 2) Politicians beat their chests and say how bad it is the data is exposed and this can never happen. Hang the CEO!! 3) The CEO goes to jail, perhaps their family is destroyed, etc. That will show them. 4) Company XYZ still has the same people in charge of security. The ones who were responsible for the security holes still work there. 5) A new security policy is put in place and plans of action are made to make sure this will never happen again. 6) New CEO make statements of how security is now our main focus and really drills it to his minions. (like security wasn't before, but this time we mean it) 7) 1 year passes, people move jobs, lessons are forgotten, rinse and repeat.
But by golly, we got that CEO. That will learn them.
This is why I say this is bad legislation and would be a waste of time. Heck, how about using the law to take out other CEOs from other companies. Hack them and expose some data. Where's my pitchfork!!
Do you see it working another way. I'm always open to different ideas and am interested.
I fully back this IF the politicians, like Elizabeth Warren, can also go to jail for their failures. I'm sure she will agree to this......
Otherwise, how will this be workable? So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks? What about the people who are supposed to be applying the privacy policies? What about the engineers and technicians? This just seems like a "witch hunt" and political posturing.
Her statements make it sound like the CEO is trying to "cheat their customers" by having a security breach? There's nothing in it for the CEO if there is a security breach. If a CEO is stealing from someone, then ya, book them.
This seems like a way to get some vote and wanting to stick it "to the man". I'm sure it will feel good, but it's not going to change security breaches in large corporations.
How can they dictate the wage of a contractor, without saying the're becoming a co-employer. I worked like this for a big tech company and this was strictly forbidden. Google doesn't manage contractors, the contracting agency does, including pay. If Google wants to pay them $15 an hour, then hire them and pay them $15 an hour. Otherwise, get ready, law suits are coming...
People are still using Facebook? Why? What value add does this platform offer to my life? I can think of a number of reasons not to use it, and this is just another one.
I wasn't trying to unite anyone. I'm not stating one side or the other. When a person labels someone, it usually dividing. That was my point. Also, I don't see any connection with "claiming all studies" (your words not mine) can be faked and falsified has anything to do with dividing people. So it happens? Both sides do it. Statistics lie. Etc... In fact, I don't blame some of them. Tough choice to make.
NASA? Your kidding!! The huge dump of money into a black hole? Massive government contracts? Takes forever to get anything done at huge costs. Their narrative is they are stuck in the same government machine which is controlled by whoever is in power at the time. So I guess their narrative changes about every 4 to 8 years or so.
No, you missed the point. Instead of labeling someone and dividing people, lets try and have a conversation.
I agree with the statements 100%. NO ONE is truthful in the big business of climate change. The studies done are funded by both sides and just guess what they find? Just what they want to find. Usually in the extreme. Either there is nothing going on keep burning massive amounts of coal, to the world will end next month. Heck, hasn't the world been predicted to end or be under water by many studies already? I guess we're living on borrowed time.
The huge business of climate change. You might as well exchange big oil or energy for climate change. Follow the money. You think all these people really care that much about climate change? It's a job. They like money, and so do most of us. It's nice to have and if governments and a lot of rich people want to throw it at someone, why not get some. Of course if a study doesn't prove the funder's narrative, you won't get anymore money. Might want to tweek those numbers a bit if you want to get another study.
That's the point. By being so extreme on either side, it makes BOTH sides seem like the're full of it. So I understand the feeling. Try starting there.
OK, quick reality check. Electric cars will work in the cold. Also, they will not work as efficiently in the cold. Batteries just act like this. How many times do you have issues with a starting battery in an ICE vehicle in the summer as apposed to the winter? Still usually works, but not as well.
The other really misleading part of this article is the numbers. Really, Tesla sold 5,822 cars and had 31.7% of the market share in a year? Not alot of demand for cars there, but if there is good alternatives I understand why.
Depends on what you consider the "bottom" 10-20%. I worked for Intel for 15 years and it was always a changing system what the bottom people were. Let me explain:
First anyone who received a "below expectations" or lower on their yearly review, might as well go look for another job. This kind of action would happen every 2-3 years and if you had a low rating in the last 3-5 years, you were gone. No matter if you became the shinning star the next year. If one manager wanted to get rid of you that's all it took. Also you're black listed from Intel. Can't return ever. So this one was understood, but sucked.
Next, During an annual review process, an employee would receive pay increase and stock based off of their performance. Good managers would ask employees what they wanted, more pay or stock and would try and compensate their employees accordingly. Stock was given out in 5 different levels along with 5 levels of rating. (this varies over the years and if you were exempt or not) So a manager might give a lower level of stock to a good performer, and give them better pay bump. UNTIL, they announced a cut action, and it all of a sudden included anyone with stock level 4 or 5 (low end) in the last 3 years. No warning or nothing. Managers railed against this saying they never would have done this to people in their group, but too late. Those people were gone, no questions asked and unless you know the VP of HR or something, it was time to go.
That is one example of "bottom performers". I can't remember the "tools" Intel used to get rid of people, but there was others. Part of your job was to read the tea leaves and figure out where not to be and what not to do.
I personally was part of the 2016 cut backs. My site was shut down, and I had a couple of opportunities to move to JF in Oregon. I took the graceful bow out. I was in IT. I think I made the right call. No job is forever, and Intel will pay you well to go away. I never thought I would retire from Intel. Very few people made it past 20 years, not because of work, but because of stuff like this.
Maybe Intel VISA is a newly coined phrase, but there have been access to the PCH has been around for along time. In my experience (at Intel, on dev teams) This is used firstly for debug at development time and then at manufacturing time for passing certain test. Both used to have a physical device to do this, so just doing it remotely wouldn't work. Also, all features were available at dev time for obvious reasons. By manufacturing time, it should be mostly locked down and before it goes out the door, totally locked.
What I'm afraid of is security has become lax enough to allow remote access to this. Like a lazy engineer/architect (ever had one of those?) didn't want to walk his butt into the secure lab so they just put some back door in with telling anyone. Or worse after by off from the development team.
Also, yes these are undocumented because they are never meant for outside use (Intel, OEMs, etc) Just debug and optimization. No one else would really want access, but nefarious peeps would.
This could be a big issue if there really is something here. I'm hoping Intel didn't get lazy, but who knows.
This isn't any big layoffs or anything. Heck, they had to push multiple large companies together to get to 1200 jobs. This could be a simply be get rid of people they don't want and rehire in other more key groups. Who knows. Seem like a non event.
Visiting a friend of ours who is a farmer in eastern Washington I learned a lot about this issue. 1) Farmers who make it are not dumb, in fact they usually can fix anything because either they have the tools, or their neighbors do. Farmers help each other out. By the way this is as simple as changing a part with bolts on it. Not just the fancy software. But right now you can't do this. 2) Farmers can't wait for the repair man to show up. It can take a couple of weeks and this is suicide for a farmer. If it's time to plant and dry enough, you have to go. It could mean success or failure of a crop. 3) Even if it's just the software, you know how easy it is to show up and install an update. Make a video how to do it. But this wouldn't line the pockets of John Deere. It's just a USB stick.
Funny, read a story how Canada can't keep tech employees since they get payed a lot less than US employees. I hope the Canadian Tech workers are keeping track of the numbers in the article. This will NOT make it better for Canadian employees, it will drive down wages even more.
It always looks great to economists and investors, but not for employees.
US is making the correct move, Canada is just the new landing spot. Enjoy!
How about this for an idea. Look at how the candidates have vote or what core beliefs they lean to. Ignore all the stupid "russian influence" and other garbage and then vote. Don't vote off emotions. Ignore all the stupid.
and shut off Facebook (insert dumb "website" here) and go get some fresh air.
Do people think this bill has any chance of passing if it's simply the same thing the FCC removed? Of course it won't! So this is just a political game. Dems will cry: Look the other guys don't want net neutrality!! The Republicans will cry: We want net neutrality, we just don't want it implemented the way it is. And the argument goes round and round. It's simply about D vs R. Nothing more. NEITHER care a bit about net neutrality. (sorry I'm sure there is a few in there but I'm a bit jaded)
I have an idea: Stop pushing legislation that is DOA and find some common ground and do some work. I swear the last 2+ years has just been alot of nothing.
This study has a lot of issues. Now I'm not saying we watch what is going on with the ocean and the fish. I am saying there might be some difference in technology from 1930 till now. So there might be some issues with the stat this entire study is based.
Also, just to blame all this on oceans warming is really irresponsible. Gee there couldn't be any other factors, like how much we fish, pollutants, etc.
But, if you put that in your paper, then you will get more funding. Follow the dirty money...
This is what someone calls "destroying" they need to be put in a bubble the rest of their lives. That CEO has had much tougher talks and dealings to get to where he is now. Not easy climbing the corporate ladder.
Besides, this is just politics. It's only popular right now. This will be forgotten and gone soon enough.
SirSlud, thank you for your comment. Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information? People lie all the time, it's life. People shout down the opposing side by calling others names and labeling them with incorrect labels. Really what needs to happen is simply have a conversation. But this is a personal thing.
Stupid information? Again says who? From what point of view?
Thankfully, I'm not utterly ignorant of history, I fall between somewhat, and so-so.
I don't care what people say about vaccines or what ever. Say it, and be counted if you really feel needed. When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not? This always sounds great till it's your point of view that is squished. Best part is you usually won't even know it. Companies can do this all the time in the background.
Of course these are public companies so they can do what they like. It's just a medium.
As far as vaccines, I'll get my advise from my doctor.
So if I did have a daughter who was into gymnastics, and I posted her winning the super duper first prize, is this sexually suggestive? I believe someone out there will find it that way. So where to we draw the line. Would I get in trouble for posting such a video, if "someone" says this is sexually suggestive?
This is a useless. Ask 10 people what NN is and you will get 10 answers. If the government simply puts back the NN rules as before, then it's broken. This is simply a political ploy. Here is the scenario:
Dems bring bill to reinstate (makes sound good) NN rules. Reps don't vote for it, and it goes no where (Reps say same reasons for broken NN rule that were there in the first place) Dems rave about how Reps are in it for the big corporations (gee where does all of the money from both of them come from) and they don't want equality. People this is this true because no one has any idea what NN is and if something is good for them or not. Next, Reps will bring out their own. Dems will say it's not good enough and vote it down. And around we go.
Nothing gets done. By the way, did anyone actually check with some networking experts on these rules they want to implement. With how the original rules were written, that would be no. But if they did, they paid a pretty penny for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, he'll take care of you....
Ah, just give the security group more money. This doesn't take out the human element of an employee being lazy, reckless, etc. More money just sounds like a government solution, but I will concede this could help.
I hope you're kidding about the putting profits before user data. Of course they do. Are they not in the business of making money, not in the business of protecting data. I'm not saying they are or not, just lets be real... profit. Also, I'm not going to invest in a company if it's #1 priority is not to make profit. And please don't get righteous. If you want to open a business that's sole concern is security, go for it.
I also can't agree with the CEO learning from the last one. History proves that time and time again. Also, greed is a great motivator to make a buck.
I like how people get called names for post their opinion. Great thing is, It doesn't bother me.
You have your opinion and I have mine. I of course think mine is better. I can't draw the same conclusions.
Wow someone has some real anger issues, and yes I am simple. I like it that way.
This is the reason I posted what I did. This is an emotional response to try and solve a problem. Let's look at this if it was deployed:
1) Company XYZ has a security breach. Data is compromised. Firstly, the CEO is packing his bags at this point (joke)
2) Politicians beat their chests and say how bad it is the data is exposed and this can never happen. Hang the CEO!!
3) The CEO goes to jail, perhaps their family is destroyed, etc. That will show them.
4) Company XYZ still has the same people in charge of security. The ones who were responsible for the security holes still work there.
5) A new security policy is put in place and plans of action are made to make sure this will never happen again.
6) New CEO make statements of how security is now our main focus and really drills it to his minions. (like security wasn't before, but this time we mean it)
7) 1 year passes, people move jobs, lessons are forgotten, rinse and repeat.
But by golly, we got that CEO. That will learn them.
This is why I say this is bad legislation and would be a waste of time. Heck, how about using the law to take out other CEOs from other companies. Hack them and expose some data. Where's my pitchfork!!
Do you see it working another way. I'm always open to different ideas and am interested.
I fully back this IF the politicians, like Elizabeth Warren, can also go to jail for their failures. I'm sure she will agree to this......
Otherwise, how will this be workable? So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks? What about the people who are supposed to be applying the privacy policies? What about the engineers and technicians? This just seems like a "witch hunt" and political posturing.
Her statements make it sound like the CEO is trying to "cheat their customers" by having a security breach? There's nothing in it for the CEO if there is a security breach. If a CEO is stealing from someone, then ya, book them.
This seems like a way to get some vote and wanting to stick it "to the man". I'm sure it will feel good, but it's not going to change security breaches in large corporations.
How can they dictate the wage of a contractor, without saying the're becoming a co-employer. I worked like this for a big tech company and this was strictly forbidden. Google doesn't manage contractors, the contracting agency does, including pay. If Google wants to pay them $15 an hour, then hire them and pay them $15 an hour. Otherwise, get ready, law suits are coming...
People are still using Facebook? Why? What value add does this platform offer to my life? I can think of a number of reasons not to use it, and this is just another one.
Facebook lost it's way a long time ago.
I wasn't trying to unite anyone. I'm not stating one side or the other. When a person labels someone, it usually dividing. That was my point. Also, I don't see any connection with "claiming all studies" (your words not mine) can be faked and falsified has anything to do with dividing people. So it happens? Both sides do it. Statistics lie. Etc... In fact, I don't blame some of them. Tough choice to make.
NASA? Your kidding!! The huge dump of money into a black hole? Massive government contracts? Takes forever to get anything done at huge costs. Their narrative is they are stuck in the same government machine which is controlled by whoever is in power at the time. So I guess their narrative changes about every 4 to 8 years or so.
No, you missed the point. Instead of labeling someone and dividing people, lets try and have a conversation.
I agree with the statements 100%. NO ONE is truthful in the big business of climate change. The studies done are funded by both sides and just guess what they find? Just what they want to find. Usually in the extreme. Either there is nothing going on keep burning massive amounts of coal, to the world will end next month. Heck, hasn't the world been predicted to end or be under water by many studies already? I guess we're living on borrowed time.
The huge business of climate change. You might as well exchange big oil or energy for climate change. Follow the money. You think all these people really care that much about climate change? It's a job. They like money, and so do most of us. It's nice to have and if governments and a lot of rich people want to throw it at someone, why not get some. Of course if a study doesn't prove the funder's narrative, you won't get anymore money. Might want to tweek those numbers a bit if you want to get another study.
That's the point. By being so extreme on either side, it makes BOTH sides seem like the're full of it. So I understand the feeling. Try starting there.
OK, quick reality check. Electric cars will work in the cold. Also, they will not work as efficiently in the cold. Batteries just act like this. How many times do you have issues with a starting battery in an ICE vehicle in the summer as apposed to the winter? Still usually works, but not as well.
The other really misleading part of this article is the numbers. Really, Tesla sold 5,822 cars and had 31.7% of the market share in a year? Not alot of demand for cars there, but if there is good alternatives I understand why.
Depends on what you consider the "bottom" 10-20%. I worked for Intel for 15 years and it was always a changing system what the bottom people were. Let me explain:
First anyone who received a "below expectations" or lower on their yearly review, might as well go look for another job. This kind of action would happen every 2-3 years and if you had a low rating in the last 3-5 years, you were gone. No matter if you became the shinning star the next year. If one manager wanted to get rid of you that's all it took. Also you're black listed from Intel. Can't return ever. So this one was understood, but sucked.
Next, During an annual review process, an employee would receive pay increase and stock based off of their performance. Good managers would ask employees what they wanted, more pay or stock and would try and compensate their employees accordingly. Stock was given out in 5 different levels along with 5 levels of rating. (this varies over the years and if you were exempt or not) So a manager might give a lower level of stock to a good performer, and give them better pay bump. UNTIL, they announced a cut action, and it all of a sudden included anyone with stock level 4 or 5 (low end) in the last 3 years. No warning or nothing. Managers railed against this saying they never would have done this to people in their group, but too late. Those people were gone, no questions asked and unless you know the VP of HR or something, it was time to go.
That is one example of "bottom performers". I can't remember the "tools" Intel used to get rid of people, but there was others. Part of your job was to read the tea leaves and figure out where not to be and what not to do.
I personally was part of the 2016 cut backs. My site was shut down, and I had a couple of opportunities to move to JF in Oregon. I took the graceful bow out. I was in IT. I think I made the right call. No job is forever, and Intel will pay you well to go away. I never thought I would retire from Intel. Very few people made it past 20 years, not because of work, but because of stuff like this.
Maybe Intel VISA is a newly coined phrase, but there have been access to the PCH has been around for along time. In my experience (at Intel, on dev teams) This is used firstly for debug at development time and then at manufacturing time for passing certain test. Both used to have a physical device to do this, so just doing it remotely wouldn't work. Also, all features were available at dev time for obvious reasons. By manufacturing time, it should be mostly locked down and before it goes out the door, totally locked.
What I'm afraid of is security has become lax enough to allow remote access to this. Like a lazy engineer/architect (ever had one of those?) didn't want to walk his butt into the secure lab so they just put some back door in with telling anyone. Or worse after by off from the development team.
Also, yes these are undocumented because they are never meant for outside use (Intel, OEMs, etc) Just debug and optimization. No one else would really want access, but nefarious peeps would.
This could be a big issue if there really is something here. I'm hoping Intel didn't get lazy, but who knows.
This isn't any big layoffs or anything. Heck, they had to push multiple large companies together to get to 1200 jobs. This could be a simply be get rid of people they don't want and rehire in other more key groups. Who knows. Seem like a non event.
Visiting a friend of ours who is a farmer in eastern Washington I learned a lot about this issue.
1) Farmers who make it are not dumb, in fact they usually can fix anything because either they have the tools, or their neighbors do. Farmers help each other out. By the way this is as simple as changing a part with bolts on it. Not just the fancy software. But right now you can't do this.
2) Farmers can't wait for the repair man to show up. It can take a couple of weeks and this is suicide for a farmer. If it's time to plant and dry enough, you have to go. It could mean success or failure of a crop.
3) Even if it's just the software, you know how easy it is to show up and install an update. Make a video how to do it. But this wouldn't line the pockets of John Deere. It's just a USB stick.
Funny, read a story how Canada can't keep tech employees since they get payed a lot less than US employees. I hope the Canadian Tech workers are keeping track of the numbers in the article. This will NOT make it better for Canadian employees, it will drive down wages even more.
It always looks great to economists and investors, but not for employees.
US is making the correct move, Canada is just the new landing spot. Enjoy!
Yay!!
How about this for an idea. Look at how the candidates have vote or what core beliefs they lean to. Ignore all the stupid "russian influence" and other garbage and then vote. Don't vote off emotions. Ignore all the stupid.
and shut off Facebook (insert dumb "website" here) and go get some fresh air.
Do people think this bill has any chance of passing if it's simply the same thing the FCC removed? Of course it won't! So this is just a political game. Dems will cry: Look the other guys don't want net neutrality!! The Republicans will cry: We want net neutrality, we just don't want it implemented the way it is. And the argument goes round and round. It's simply about D vs R. Nothing more. NEITHER care a bit about net neutrality. (sorry I'm sure there is a few in there but I'm a bit jaded)
I have an idea: Stop pushing legislation that is DOA and find some common ground and do some work. I swear the last 2+ years has just been alot of nothing.
This study has a lot of issues. Now I'm not saying we watch what is going on with the ocean and the fish. I am saying there might be some difference in technology from 1930 till now. So there might be some issues with the stat this entire study is based.
Also, just to blame all this on oceans warming is really irresponsible. Gee there couldn't be any other factors, like how much we fish, pollutants, etc.
But, if you put that in your paper, then you will get more funding. Follow the dirty money...
This is what someone calls "destroying" they need to be put in a bubble the rest of their lives. That CEO has had much tougher talks and dealings to get to where he is now. Not easy climbing the corporate ladder.
Besides, this is just politics. It's only popular right now. This will be forgotten and gone soon enough.
SirSlud, thank you for your comment. Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information? People lie all the time, it's life. People shout down the opposing side by calling others names and labeling them with incorrect labels. Really what needs to happen is simply have a conversation. But this is a personal thing.
Stupid information? Again says who? From what point of view?
Thankfully, I'm not utterly ignorant of history, I fall between somewhat, and so-so.
I don't care what people say about vaccines or what ever. Say it, and be counted if you really feel needed. When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not? This always sounds great till it's your point of view that is squished. Best part is you usually won't even know it. Companies can do this all the time in the background.
Of course these are public companies so they can do what they like. It's just a medium.
As far as vaccines, I'll get my advise from my doctor.
Go to minute 2:30 and learn alot:
Screw in with confidence, but don't screw too hard...
How did this get released?
So if I did have a daughter who was into gymnastics, and I posted her winning the super duper first prize, is this sexually suggestive? I believe someone out there will find it that way. So where to we draw the line. Would I get in trouble for posting such a video, if "someone" says this is sexually suggestive?
Hey, I'm one of those people bad mouthing the EU for the fines...
Looks like it just took the FTC a while longer to get on this revenue stream.
This is a useless. Ask 10 people what NN is and you will get 10 answers. If the government simply puts back the NN rules as before, then it's broken. This is simply a political ploy. Here is the scenario:
Dems bring bill to reinstate (makes sound good) NN rules. Reps don't vote for it, and it goes no where (Reps say same reasons for broken NN rule that were there in the first place) Dems rave about how Reps are in it for the big corporations (gee where does all of the money from both of them come from) and they don't want equality. People this is this true because no one has any idea what NN is and if something is good for them or not. Next, Reps will bring out their own. Dems will say it's not good enough and vote it down. And around we go.
Nothing gets done. By the way, did anyone actually check with some networking experts on these rules they want to implement. With how the original rules were written, that would be no. But if they did, they paid a pretty penny for it.