and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 updated 1-2 times a year.
To me educational publishing is a sham, and you hit the nail on the head as to why: The insanely high prices breed a huge secondary market, so the publishers simply call each new printing a "new edition" and labels the old ones obsolete, which allows the book stores to pay next to nothing for the books used because "they're out of date!"
You read 40Gbps and assumed the idea was for all that bandwidth to be used by only ONE person? Maybe, you know, the point is to create a point-to-point trunk that would serve a whole rural COMMUNITY.
That's the thrust of it: You get service into these communities and they can bury their own media, whatever they want it to be. Or redistribute on a different wireless band to neighborhood homes via Wi-Max...
Now they'll decree the press are terrorists and say it's illegal to do this since it prevents 'awful' monitoring.
I think this whole snooping on the reporters thing has them deciding to fight back and send a big "F you".
I find it offensive that they needed it to happen to them personally before they did anything about it. This has been a "fact of life" of "Post-9/11" America for over a decade now, and the first the AP reports significantly on snooping is because it happened to them....And before that?
Hell if for no other reason they'd keep stealing them because having certain models are status symbols, whether they work or not being seen with one is a status thing.
Let's walk through that scenario...
GuyWhoStoleNowUselessiPhone: Hey man, check out my iPhone! Dude's Buddy: Sweet, what's your number, you can text me the picture of those girls... GuyWhoStoleNowUselessiPhone: Oh, well...
The status comes from having a working device--non-working marks you as a poser.
Would it help? Possibly but I doubt it, criminals just aren't that bright, look at how many cut open fiber optics to steal copper, or electrocute themselves trying to steal power lines which is worth less per pound than a set of rims off a sportscar.
It would undeniably help, and even if there were still some mobile phone thefts, they reduction in incidence would statistically require a massive reduction in violent incidents.
Again, you're thinking too narrowly: About the person stealing the phone directly. But you're wasting your time: All of those things, every last one of them, is stolen for one reason and one reason only--economic motivation. It doesn't matter that Ferrari rims are more expensive--they're usually attached to Ferraris which are usually parked in a locked, alarmed, and sometimes guarded garage. (An alarm being worth the investment for the garage when the car parked inside is worth more than an upper-middle-class home.) So the risk in stealing those rims (the perceived risk of being caught) is far higher than the risk of stealing fiber or copper. Granted, plenty of thieves have died during botched attempts at the theft of both, but don't count them as stupid--they're merely operating at a different risk-tolerance than you. That is, they'd rather die than get caught.
To steal a line from Mel Brooks "Bullshit, bullshit, aaaaannnnnddd bullshit". Here are the facts, 1.-The "cell phone gun" has a NON WORKING SCREEN because naturally there is no room to put electronics into it and still have room for the firing mechanism. 2.- It looks like a real cell phone ONLY FROM A DISTANCE as things like fake screen and cheap plastic keypad makes it look like one of the $1 toys you get in stores like Family Dollar for little kids, no way somebody is gonna mistake or be unable to tell the difference if they are close enough to knock it out of your hand.
As for TFA and the suggestions to use things like IMEI to makes phones easy to trace? It might catch the criminal after he tried to pawn it but it won't stop them from beating or even killing somebody for their iPhone because...well lets face it folks, criminals aren't the brightest of bulbs at the best of times. I mean how many times have we seen a criminal who has killed somebody and stolen their CCs and bank cards just standing at an ATM with the cards, no trying to hide their face or anything? With the cameras practically staring them right in the face?
So while various tracing measures can be used to bust the criminal after expecting to lower crime by tracing won't work because criminals are morons that are attracted to shiny objects, period the end.
You're thinking much too far... The reason phones are stolen is because there is a market for stolen phones. Without it, there is little point in stealing phones.
The best solution isn't "tracing" anything because ultimately it will be difficult to prove who stole which phone and from whom, but it would be trivial for the carriers to simply pledge to honor a "do not service" blacklist of handsets that have been reported stolen by their owners. Doing this instantly demolishes the market for stolen phones: If the phones can't be connected to any carrier, who would buy them? If nobody buys them, why steal them? If you can't use them yourself, why steal them?
These crimes are economic in nature. Eliminate the chance to make a profit from stolen phones (or to just use them yourself) by refusing to service stolen phones--just make it a technical block that prevents the phones from mating to the network, or from being assigned to an account, or some similar option to attack the usability of the phone.
Sorry, cell phone theft is not serious crime. Serious crime is genocide, murder, rape, molesting children, kidnapping, torture, etc.
Sticking a gun in somebody's face, threatening them with a knife, or beating them are serious crimes. The others you listed are more serious but this isn't some case of some iPhanboi having an emotional breakdown because his iToys were stolen, if you read TFA you'd notice a great mean of these robberies are armed, involve physical violence, or the direct threat of it. Maybe that isn't "serious" where you come from, but if it isn't, you have my sympathies. Let me know if you need me to recommend a good realtor.
China already is breaking the existing laws of the United States
How, by having Chinese people go visit US and commit crimes over there?
By invading systems in the United States they are, in fact, violating US law. It doesn't matter where you are, when you commit a crime against someone (or a property crime against some thing) in the United States you are breaking United States laws. Now, they're doing so in a way that seems unlikely to lead to prosecution or conviction, but the laws have been broken. You can't come to the US, whether in physical or virtual form, and act with impunity. Laws do in fact apply to Chinese nationals, and if any of them showed up on US soil they could be arrested, tried, and jailed for their crime: Acting under state orders is not an affirmative defense that I've found.
Yes, but the next question is whether or not there should be some protection of trade secrets. Given a state actor aggressively hacking most major companies, and a distributed threat against smaller companies, there is a case to be made for some protection.
I'm not sure what "protection" that would provide: China already is breaking the existing laws of the United States, what makes you think a regimen of laws to protect "trade secrets" will stop them? What it will be useful for, though, is hushing up whistle blowers.
Wouldn't this violate HIPAA? This is a medical record of the health of a specific patient, easily identified.
What's Neil Armstrong going to do about it if it is a HIPAA violation?
Yeah, I forgot he died.
Still, though, given the raging hard-on most institutions in the US have about HIPAA, and specifically, about revealing "PHI" to the public (not an abbreviation for Philadelphia, but for "Patient Health Information) you'd think that even the appearance of selling medical records would be frowned upon, even if it isn't a technical violation.
FYI, that bridge collapse, you know the one where that involved real people that readers here actually know, was a government failure.
Careful, with all that heat you might set your straw-men on fire.
You say 100% true: It was a government failure--but it was the government's failure to fund upgrades and repairs, not their failure to spend wisely. Yes, there probably is money that could be redirected from wasteful propositions to this--but it wasn't, and the reason it wasn't is because a few idiots convinced their congressmen that it was "Smart" to vote against any spending on everything until we could get rid of President Nigger.
And here we are.
Sorry if you knew the people on the bridge when it collapsed--but you're not doing their memory any favors to dig in your heels and say "Spend other money!" We both agree the government was responsible to maintain and/or repair the bridge, so what's the beef with me? Your beef is with the "Any spending is bad big gubmint!" people, not me. The Teatards alternative to wasteful spending wasn't "Spend it more wisely," but "let's eliminate the few taxes we charge rich people" which hardly would have fixed the bridges.
You may want to look into those incidents deeper and look into how much money is wasted on graft, corruption, and pork barrel spending before you kneejerk and boldly claim they were due to simply not having a big enough budget.
I don't think I said that at all.
What I was trying to do was make a point about the dogmatic opposition to any spending involving infrastructure in this country as "big government!" When in fact the term you want is "effective government." And the same government can be bloated and mis-managed in one area and underfunded in another--the fact that some money is wasted in some part of the government doesn't justify ignoring these critical infrastructure items.
When you built a dam you used to build an entire, monolithic control room to go with it, hardware and all. There really isn't much excuse for using software with dongles and connecting the dam operating hardware to the internet, directly, indirectly, or via sneakernet.
This just doesn't reflect reality. Dams, power plants, etc are all businesses, and have to interface with other businesses that buy the product that they produce. So if they need an app with a dongle to sell power then you'd better figure out a way to give them their dongle or you can find another job.
It's easy to say "Dongles are a security risk!" and be right while missing the forest for the trees: If the dongle is required to sell power you will have the dongle. Period.
This idea that you can have your cake and eat it too--that is, that we're going to turn back the clock to 1982 with non-networked computer systems (and even non-computerized plants) is a fantasy. And that we'll somehow magically do so without any physical connection to the outside world is also fantasy, or without any USB ports? HA! The same crowd with pitchforks and torches in hand over the fact that dams and power plants have LANs that connect to the Internet would be the same people to jump into action if those LANs were disconnected from the outside world permanently and then wound up compromised because they're running out-of-date operating systems and software because it is suddenly verboten to connect those machines to Windows Update, or to any machine outside the "firewall," or to carry the updates in on physical media.
There is no such thing as "perfect" security, and anybody who tries to tell you there is has something to sell you that relies on you believing this unicorn can ever exist. It can't, but they'll still cash your checks until the day you stop writing them.
Firewalls can and do block incoming traffic. The only machine allowed to make outbound connections is the SMNP trap server, and it can only connect to internal SMTP server.
Sneakernet is the problem, electronically securing systems that must send electronic alerts, not so much
And where do these machines get security updates from? Any commercial software they're running has to be developed somewhere, and any in-house software would likely be developed on the "office" side, so you then run into the problem of how do you make a "secure-office" network that "can't talk to anybody" and then you quickly ask "But if the devs are on a "secure network" that nobody connects to, how do they get their code to production?"...And then we're right back to the sneakernet and all the weaknesses that come with it...
SNMP was an example, but it is probably the most-simple problem to solve because "a firewall" solves it completely. The other issues, not so much.
Cameras don't combat crime. They don't prevent crime, they don't deter criminals, they don't allow police to stop perpetrators.
They are evidence after the fact, and a really easy way for the government to spy on you.
One night last year I was walking down a street when a car drove past me, the passenger threw a full cup of soda at me (and just missed). A block away I see the car has turned around and is coming toward me, so I whipped out my phone and held it up to record video. Like a vampire seeing a crucifix they stop their approach, then decide to leave down a side road, like the cowards they are. Sometimes, cameras do prevent crime.
In the U.S. the encounter would have ended with you unloading 14-17 9mm loads into their car and most/all of them dead.
The vulnerabilities of the dams are the real problem, but for some reason the government prefers to lie about that. Most of these vulnerabilities are probably pretty obvious to an expert (and, yes, the Chinese have experts on damns and these can go to the US for vacation), so hiding these problems is pretty stupid in the first place.
Right, but we don't want no more liberal big gubmint!" And so the dams go unrepaired. As go the bridges. And waterways. And embankments. And highway offramps...
Every great many years something fails spectacularly, and a few dozen commuters get splashed into the river. See also Minneapolis... Then lip service is paid, asses are kissed, and in the end only the absolutely worst bridges are fixed, the rest simply get "back-burnered" until the next stimulus bill comes along. And millions of commuters drive over these roads and bridges every single day.
I don't understand why anyone would want to connect really important things such as power plants and dams to the Internet. We have been running such things for about a century now and they work just fine. Anything behind a barbed wire fence should never be connected to the Internet. Why do people do this? Just for the convenience of some fat executive or lazy engineer who doesn't want to get his fat @$$ out of this office and see what is really going on with the machinery?
The issue isn't that individual devices are connected to the Internet per se, the problem is that many of these networks are not designed to isolate the sensitive systems from "vanilla" office computers. The problem is people in operations centers need access to weather, news etc and while they have news channels on video wall with various other readouts, sometimes they need to confirm stuff. If it really is going to freeze suddenly, that will require extra capacity as heaters, water heaters, and engine block-heaters get switched back on by some people.
They could run parallel LANs, with separate workstations and networks for the "sensitive" operational machines and the "regular" vanilla workstations where people do email and crap.
The risk is at the touch points, and good luck shutting them all down. How will the administrators receive alerts if the "sensitive" systems can't send SNMP pops to a monitoring system outside the virtual-wire--or to one inside of it that then emails you outside the wire. At some point, PEOPLE become the touch point and sneaker net with USB tokens becomes a problem. You can shutdown and cement over the USB ports but some applications require dongles somewhere and eventually something gets plugged into something and autorun.exe happens and the next thing you know, they're hacked by Chinese.
This problem runs many, many layers deep. If only "unplugging it" was that easy.
Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.
Sorry, but no.
There is no law requiring Yahoo to give anybody paid leave when they have a baby. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does require them to grant an employee leave for a medical emergency (like birth of a child) but that leave is unpaid--any pay you receive from your employer while on leave is strictly voluntary.
Which means these men aren't being "discriminated" against, they're getting an awesome perk where they'd otherwise be getting nothing. The fact that their wives get a bigger perk (16 weeks paid leave to your 8) is uneven, but hardly "discrimination." First and foremost, "men" aren't a protected class in this country, so everytime somebody sneezes and they get offended it isn't "discrimination." Second, they aren't required to offer ANY paid leave after birth of a child--to anybody. The fact that you are complaining about two months pay to luxuriate in the joys of fatherhood marks you as a greedy fucker. Shit man, how much more fucking pork should we kick to you breeders?
What's next: People without kids suing for their "free" 16/8 week paid leaves?
Slashdot Mirror
and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 updated 1-2 times a year.
To me educational publishing is a sham, and you hit the nail on the head as to why: The insanely high prices breed a huge secondary market, so the publishers simply call each new printing a "new edition" and labels the old ones obsolete, which allows the book stores to pay next to nothing for the books used because "they're out of date!"
You read 40Gbps and assumed the idea was for all that bandwidth to be used by only ONE person? Maybe, you know, the point is to create a point-to-point trunk that would serve a whole rural COMMUNITY.
That's the thrust of it: You get service into these communities and they can bury their own media, whatever they want it to be. Or redistribute on a different wireless band to neighborhood homes via Wi-Max...
yeah but helicopters are expensive compared to cars. I'm fairly certain that this setup is cheaper than the amount of fiber its replacing.
Give this man a cigar!
Hopefully it will not rely on any "proprietary" tech so it can't be priced at $5 million per radio or, (cost of building fiber - 10%).
Now they'll decree the press are terrorists and say it's illegal to do this since it prevents 'awful' monitoring.
I think this whole snooping on the reporters thing has them deciding to fight back and send a big "F you".
I find it offensive that they needed it to happen to them personally before they did anything about it. This has been a "fact of life" of "Post-9/11" America for over a decade now, and the first the AP reports significantly on snooping is because it happened to them. ...And before that?
Hell if for no other reason they'd keep stealing them because having certain models are status symbols, whether they work or not being seen with one is a status thing.
Let's walk through that scenario...
GuyWhoStoleNowUselessiPhone: Hey man, check out my iPhone!
Dude's Buddy: Sweet, what's your number, you can text me the picture of those girls...
GuyWhoStoleNowUselessiPhone: Oh, well...
The status comes from having a working device--non-working marks you as a poser.
Would it help? Possibly but I doubt it, criminals just aren't that bright, look at how many cut open fiber optics to steal copper, or electrocute themselves trying to steal power lines which is worth less per pound than a set of rims off a sportscar.
It would undeniably help, and even if there were still some mobile phone thefts, they reduction in incidence would statistically require a massive reduction in violent incidents.
Again, you're thinking too narrowly: About the person stealing the phone directly. But you're wasting your time: All of those things, every last one of them, is stolen for one reason and one reason only--economic motivation. It doesn't matter that Ferrari rims are more expensive--they're usually attached to Ferraris which are usually parked in a locked, alarmed, and sometimes guarded garage. (An alarm being worth the investment for the garage when the car parked inside is worth more than an upper-middle-class home.) So the risk in stealing those rims (the perceived risk of being caught) is far higher than the risk of stealing fiber or copper. Granted, plenty of thieves have died during botched attempts at the theft of both, but don't count them as stupid--they're merely operating at a different risk-tolerance than you. That is, they'd rather die than get caught.
Password set to "Welcome123!"
To steal a line from Mel Brooks "Bullshit, bullshit, aaaaannnnnddd bullshit". Here are the facts, 1.-The "cell phone gun" has a NON WORKING SCREEN because naturally there is no room to put electronics into it and still have room for the firing mechanism. 2.- It looks like a real cell phone ONLY FROM A DISTANCE as things like fake screen and cheap plastic keypad makes it look like one of the $1 toys you get in stores like Family Dollar for little kids, no way somebody is gonna mistake or be unable to tell the difference if they are close enough to knock it out of your hand.
As for TFA and the suggestions to use things like IMEI to makes phones easy to trace? It might catch the criminal after he tried to pawn it but it won't stop them from beating or even killing somebody for their iPhone because...well lets face it folks, criminals aren't the brightest of bulbs at the best of times. I mean how many times have we seen a criminal who has killed somebody and stolen their CCs and bank cards just standing at an ATM with the cards, no trying to hide their face or anything? With the cameras practically staring them right in the face?
So while various tracing measures can be used to bust the criminal after expecting to lower crime by tracing won't work because criminals are morons that are attracted to shiny objects, period the end.
You're thinking much too far... The reason phones are stolen is because there is a market for stolen phones. Without it, there is little point in stealing phones.
The best solution isn't "tracing" anything because ultimately it will be difficult to prove who stole which phone and from whom, but it would be trivial for the carriers to simply pledge to honor a "do not service" blacklist of handsets that have been reported stolen by their owners. Doing this instantly demolishes the market for stolen phones: If the phones can't be connected to any carrier, who would buy them? If nobody buys them, why steal them? If you can't use them yourself, why steal them?
These crimes are economic in nature. Eliminate the chance to make a profit from stolen phones (or to just use them yourself) by refusing to service stolen phones--just make it a technical block that prevents the phones from mating to the network, or from being assigned to an account, or some similar option to attack the usability of the phone.
Sorry, cell phone theft is not serious crime. Serious crime is genocide, murder, rape, molesting children, kidnapping, torture, etc.
Sticking a gun in somebody's face, threatening them with a knife, or beating them are serious crimes. The others you listed are more serious but this isn't some case of some iPhanboi having an emotional breakdown because his iToys were stolen, if you read TFA you'd notice a great mean of these robberies are armed, involve physical violence, or the direct threat of it. Maybe that isn't "serious" where you come from, but if it isn't, you have my sympathies. Let me know if you need me to recommend a good realtor.
China already is breaking the existing laws of the United States
How, by having Chinese people go visit US and commit crimes over there?
By invading systems in the United States they are, in fact, violating US law. It doesn't matter where you are, when you commit a crime against someone (or a property crime against some thing) in the United States you are breaking United States laws. Now, they're doing so in a way that seems unlikely to lead to prosecution or conviction, but the laws have been broken. You can't come to the US, whether in physical or virtual form, and act with impunity. Laws do in fact apply to Chinese nationals, and if any of them showed up on US soil they could be arrested, tried, and jailed for their crime: Acting under state orders is not an affirmative defense that I've found.
Yes, but the next question is whether or not there should be some protection of trade secrets. Given a state actor aggressively hacking most major companies, and a distributed threat against smaller companies, there is a case to be made for some protection.
I'm not sure what "protection" that would provide: China already is breaking the existing laws of the United States, what makes you think a regimen of laws to protect "trade secrets" will stop them? What it will be useful for, though, is hushing up whistle blowers.
Wouldn't this violate HIPAA? This is a medical record of the health of a specific patient, easily identified.
What's Neil Armstrong going to do about it if it is a HIPAA violation?
Yeah, I forgot he died.
Still, though, given the raging hard-on most institutions in the US have about HIPAA, and specifically, about revealing "PHI" to the public (not an abbreviation for Philadelphia, but for "Patient Health Information) you'd think that even the appearance of selling medical records would be frowned upon, even if it isn't a technical violation.
Wouldn't this violate HIPAA? This is a medical record of the health of a specific patient, easily identified.
"From one john's bed to the next!"
Rarely ever will a CEO admit a mistake. It's the user's fault for not loving it.
Exactly! And he'll argue it convincingly to the board during the "Why should you get a bonus meeting this year?"
FYI, that bridge collapse, you know the one where that involved real people that readers here actually know, was a government failure.
Careful, with all that heat you might set your straw-men on fire.
You say 100% true: It was a government failure--but it was the government's failure to fund upgrades and repairs, not their failure to spend wisely. Yes, there probably is money that could be redirected from wasteful propositions to this--but it wasn't, and the reason it wasn't is because a few idiots convinced their congressmen that it was "Smart" to vote against any spending on everything until we could get rid of President Nigger.
And here we are.
Sorry if you knew the people on the bridge when it collapsed--but you're not doing their memory any favors to dig in your heels and say "Spend other money!" We both agree the government was responsible to maintain and/or repair the bridge, so what's the beef with me? Your beef is with the "Any spending is bad big gubmint!" people, not me. The Teatards alternative to wasteful spending wasn't "Spend it more wisely," but "let's eliminate the few taxes we charge rich people" which hardly would have fixed the bridges.
You may want to look into those incidents deeper and look into how much money is wasted on graft, corruption, and pork barrel spending before you kneejerk and boldly claim they were due to simply not having a big enough budget.
I don't think I said that at all.
What I was trying to do was make a point about the dogmatic opposition to any spending involving infrastructure in this country as "big government!" When in fact the term you want is "effective government." And the same government can be bloated and mis-managed in one area and underfunded in another--the fact that some money is wasted in some part of the government doesn't justify ignoring these critical infrastructure items.
When you built a dam you used to build an entire, monolithic control room to go with it, hardware and all. There really isn't much excuse for using software with dongles and connecting the dam operating hardware to the internet, directly, indirectly, or via sneakernet.
This just doesn't reflect reality. Dams, power plants, etc are all businesses, and have to interface with other businesses that buy the product that they produce. So if they need an app with a dongle to sell power then you'd better figure out a way to give them their dongle or you can find another job.
It's easy to say "Dongles are a security risk!" and be right while missing the forest for the trees: If the dongle is required to sell power you will have the dongle. Period.
This idea that you can have your cake and eat it too--that is, that we're going to turn back the clock to 1982 with non-networked computer systems (and even non-computerized plants) is a fantasy. And that we'll somehow magically do so without any physical connection to the outside world is also fantasy, or without any USB ports? HA! The same crowd with pitchforks and torches in hand over the fact that dams and power plants have LANs that connect to the Internet would be the same people to jump into action if those LANs were disconnected from the outside world permanently and then wound up compromised because they're running out-of-date operating systems and software because it is suddenly verboten to connect those machines to Windows Update, or to any machine outside the "firewall," or to carry the updates in on physical media.
There is no such thing as "perfect" security, and anybody who tries to tell you there is has something to sell you that relies on you believing this unicorn can ever exist. It can't, but they'll still cash your checks until the day you stop writing them.
Firewalls can and do block incoming traffic. The only machine allowed to make outbound connections is the SMNP trap server, and it can only connect to internal SMTP server.
Sneakernet is the problem, electronically securing systems that must send electronic alerts, not so much
And where do these machines get security updates from? Any commercial software they're running has to be developed somewhere, and any in-house software would likely be developed on the "office" side, so you then run into the problem of how do you make a "secure-office" network that "can't talk to anybody" and then you quickly ask "But if the devs are on a "secure network" that nobody connects to, how do they get their code to production?" ...And then we're right back to the sneakernet and all the weaknesses that come with it...
SNMP was an example, but it is probably the most-simple problem to solve because "a firewall" solves it completely. The other issues, not so much.
Cameras don't combat crime. They don't prevent crime, they don't deter criminals, they don't allow police to stop perpetrators.
They are evidence after the fact, and a really easy way for the government to spy on you.
One night last year I was walking down a street when a car drove past me, the passenger threw a full cup of soda at me (and just missed). A block away I see the car has turned around and is coming toward me, so I whipped out my phone and held it up to record video. Like a vampire seeing a crucifix they stop their approach, then decide to leave down a side road, like the cowards they are. Sometimes, cameras do prevent crime.
In the U.S. the encounter would have ended with you unloading 14-17 9mm loads into their car and most/all of them dead.
So congratulations to you on your civility!
Anything behind a barbed wire fence should never be connected to the Internet.
Earl! Unplug the cows!
Ahh, spring... When a young AC's thoughts turn to love...
If only I had mod points... Well crafted.
The vulnerabilities of the dams are the real problem, but for some reason the government prefers to lie about that. Most of these vulnerabilities are probably pretty obvious to an expert (and, yes, the Chinese have experts on damns and these can go to the US for vacation), so hiding these problems is pretty stupid in the first place.
Right, but we don't want no more liberal big gubmint!" And so the dams go unrepaired. As go the bridges. And waterways. And embankments. And highway offramps...
Every great many years something fails spectacularly, and a few dozen commuters get splashed into the river. See also Minneapolis... Then lip service is paid, asses are kissed, and in the end only the absolutely worst bridges are fixed, the rest simply get "back-burnered" until the next stimulus bill comes along. And millions of commuters drive over these roads and bridges every single day.
Have fun! I'm riding my bike.
I don't understand why anyone would want to connect really important things such as power plants and dams to the Internet. We have been running such things for about a century now and they work just fine. Anything behind a barbed wire fence should never be connected to the Internet. Why do people do this? Just for the convenience of some fat executive or lazy engineer who doesn't want to get his fat @$$ out of this office and see what is really going on with the machinery?
The issue isn't that individual devices are connected to the Internet per se, the problem is that many of these networks are not designed to isolate the sensitive systems from "vanilla" office computers. The problem is people in operations centers need access to weather, news etc and while they have news channels on video wall with various other readouts, sometimes they need to confirm stuff. If it really is going to freeze suddenly, that will require extra capacity as heaters, water heaters, and engine block-heaters get switched back on by some people.
They could run parallel LANs, with separate workstations and networks for the "sensitive" operational machines and the "regular" vanilla workstations where people do email and crap.
The risk is at the touch points, and good luck shutting them all down. How will the administrators receive alerts if the "sensitive" systems can't send SNMP pops to a monitoring system outside the virtual-wire--or to one inside of it that then emails you outside the wire. At some point, PEOPLE become the touch point and sneaker net with USB tokens becomes a problem. You can shutdown and cement over the USB ports but some applications require dongles somewhere and eventually something gets plugged into something and autorun.exe happens and the next thing you know, they're hacked by Chinese.
This problem runs many, many layers deep. If only "unplugging it" was that easy.
Dam these Chinese!
...And then three hours later you just feel like you'll pass out if you don't hack somebody else...
--
Religion is the anthropomorphization of reality, that behind it all there's an invisible man pulling invisible strings.
Your sig is the greatest thing ever. This times a milllion.
Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.
Sorry, but no.
There is no law requiring Yahoo to give anybody paid leave when they have a baby. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does require them to grant an employee leave for a medical emergency (like birth of a child) but that leave is unpaid--any pay you receive from your employer while on leave is strictly voluntary.
Which means these men aren't being "discriminated" against, they're getting an awesome perk where they'd otherwise be getting nothing. The fact that their wives get a bigger perk (16 weeks paid leave to your 8) is uneven, but hardly "discrimination." First and foremost, "men" aren't a protected class in this country, so everytime somebody sneezes and they get offended it isn't "discrimination." Second, they aren't required to offer ANY paid leave after birth of a child--to anybody. The fact that you are complaining about two months pay to luxuriate in the joys of fatherhood marks you as a greedy fucker. Shit man, how much more fucking pork should we kick to you breeders?
What's next: People without kids suing for their "free" 16/8 week paid leaves?