I would mostly agree--a good, well-planned network architecture of a given entity is largely the biggest barrier to intrusion. A good security analyst can snoop out suspicious behavior fairly quickly. Stronger passwords buy the analyst more time to see the attack. Limiting the vectors of entry is yet another methodic layer to funnel all traffic through a filtering/monitoring process. Encryption is another layer.
Security is like onions and ogres--they have layers.
I think the bank card example was misplaced--that's usually associated with a different kind of criminal activity.
The reason bank cards work fairly well with minimal security is because you usually are required to have physical possession and the PIN. Most blue-collar thieves don't try to crack the PINs. The white collar criminals tend to fewer but more successful--and they don't target your measly little ATM cards, they go for you identity.
Well, there is something to be said about the nature of human-kind to be selfish--that is "our machine" putting its own existence first. In fact, I would classify this characteristic as a fundamental flaw that makes us, as social beings, rather antisocial. The problem to resolve this oxymoronic behavior (like Asimov's 3-Laws).
For centuries, denying "the flesh" has been a sprititual discipline in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. It stands to reason that Schaeffer would use this analogy to serve his purpose. Though you may not agree with "the punchline," this doesn't negate the problem, or rather, the disposition. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think humans want to create--we long to be "God-like." The ultimate creation would be the image of ourselves--AI (and we're plenty fascinated by it, too!). Perhaps this desire is simply the innocent curiosity of self-exploration or, less flattering, perhaps it is a lust for mastery or dominance of our universe.
Are we more than the sum of our parts or is our unique disposition of sentient self-awareness merely an illusion? Those are questions that have been asked for millennia.
Those who dare to believe in a diety (or some sort of supernatural) are comforted (or freightened) by the thought that we are much more than machines. Those who are bound to empiracal thought are limited to their own understanding and experience.
I think the latter is far more horrifying when I survey my own inability to fully grasp the empirical. Afterall, faith abandons reason or they'd call it something else.
OK, I'm fairly liberal on the issue of Freedom of Speech. But, if you're:
Blogging on company time
Blogging bad about your company
Blogging about how much you hate your job
Blogging out information that should stay behind company doors
I think you're asking for trouble. Your freedom of speech covers your political muscle not libel or slander. As an employee, there should be some respect for the boundaries expected of you. If you're fairly sure you have a right to say something, be sure to follow the same rules to which journalists are supposedly accountable: integrity, truth, and accuracy. No one should be able to fire you for that. But, if you're expected to maintain a sense of decorum or have signed a disclosure agreement, maybe you should respect the rights and privacy of the company or those about whom you're blogging. Otherwise, do something to obfuscate your identity--but bloggers love to be exhibitionists.
Personally, I think blogging is a bit of a strange habit because I'm an introvert and I don't think the world wants or cares to know about my feelings, political orientation, or how much I loathe/love my job, family, pets, or celebrities.
I do like to post occassional anecdotes, etc. but as a rule, I try to respect others and not type something I wouldn't want them to read. Or, if it's unflattering, I'll try to find some way to not assassinate their character but to find fault in the action.
The world is full of too many myopic opinionated people who care little about the effects of their words or actions. I think, we as internet denizens, should be careful to promote change with careful and constructive criticism and express ourselves with honesty without malice--even on blogs.
Maybe--but I see MacOS 9 on desktops and in use all over the place. I can still find software for it--development for new apps has halted, however. I haven't seen an Amiga (dead or alive) in ages. I meant my question quite literally--where is the Amiga and who is developing software for it?
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here--the original Mac has morphed into something else--as any computer and OS should. The Amiga has morphed itself into utter obscurity. Original Macs and the last/latest release of Amiga OS are not the same question and therefore the relevancy issue is moot.
Props to the Amiga for being the first and best of its kind, though. No arguing that. I'm just saying that it died on the vine while the Mac continued through today.
The entire idea of the company's "privacy" being raked over the coals is such classic poetic justice! I hope they feel as violated as the user's they exploited.
I think that this game's best asset is that not only does it have a Mac version but a Linux one as well. There are so many hypnotized developers that ignore these two platforms in favor of Windows only titles or spawn poor Mac/Linux afterthoughts.
It's getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's time to re-think e-mail protocols--or implement the current ones properly: mandatory authenticated SMTP, proper registration of MTAs, etc. The problem is that it's simply too easy to bombard the current setup and the rules shouldn't be political they should be technical. The big players need to lead the way--Hotmail, GMail,.Mac, AOL, (insert other here) etc. (They're also the ones who will benefit the most!). Everyone else would follow suit. If all the rogue or spoofed MTAs out there are left in the cold and the properly registered sources of abuse are uniquely identifiable for blacklisting, SPAM as we know it will become manageable. Of course, like roaches, the bastards would find another way in, but the raging river could be cut to a trickling stream.
Until then, I think this is a great investment opportunity. [Not a plug--just making a point]
Not many of these flops have been recent. The most recent of which were the funky iMacs and the crappy KB & Mouse. It seems that Apple's learned quite a bit from past mistakes. We'll see if that stays true for the iPod Shuffle and the Mac Mini.
I don't think it was fair to put MS Word 6.0 on that list, though. Afterall, Apple didn't develop it, MS did. BUT, Apple should have had some say in the quality control or excercised that voice if they had it. And, yes, it was a big giant unpolished turd. I still have nightmares about it (I was doing tech support as an undergraduate when it came out--I hold it responsible for lost papers and premature gray hair).
It's not so much Apple as it is IBM--even if they conquered the heat problem, the real issue is having enough of the chips ready for a large product line. They're just having a tough time delivering.
I predict, however, that when they do ship the G5 laptops that they will have some sort of mini liquid cooling system. (Sorry, I was channelling Cringely).
Seems like he's got the backward/forward stabilizing working. It's that pesky side to side thing that might garner a need for a helmet. Maybe his next project might be a self-balancing Pilates ball!
Back in my day, we just pirated with VHS copies and all our pr0n was tucked under the mattress where our moms "couldn't find" it. Then, we got computers and they REALLY couldn't find it. I'm just gonna give my kids pr0n and pirated movies and let them make their own decisions. I mean it's a pretty f**ked up world when a kid can't hide or share his crappy copy of "Spider Man 2" that was recorded from a DV cam in behind a bunch of rowdy kids. Party poopers.
MSFT does not care about quality; it cares about quantity. It cares about profits to shareholders and to the the number of units it shipped. It cares about its dominance in the market. It cares about crushing anyone or anything that competes or threatens their position. MSFT's leadership cares about the company's bottom line and nothing more.
If they truly cared about quality, there would be much less malware and and far fewer security holes in their products. They would actually care about this encryption issue. Their lack of response, to them, does not validate the problem as a reality.
But don't worry, Longhorn is coming! (He said with wry sarcasm. )
I actually did that once to a RedHat machine myself. Funny to watch it implode. (Funny like, ya know, driving a brand new car off a cliff funny--funny if you can afford it).
Though it's good to know that WINE will do what it's supposed to do--execute code written for Windows, it's kinda silly to think it wouldn't.
Maybe they'll post a story about, "Why do dumb users get to have all the fun? Why shouldn't Linux admins get in on all the insanity, too? Today we'll be doing rm -rf/ to see what happens!"
Slashdot Mirror
That's the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Thanks!
I would mostly agree--a good, well-planned network architecture of a given entity is largely the biggest barrier to intrusion. A good security analyst can snoop out suspicious behavior fairly quickly. Stronger passwords buy the analyst more time to see the attack. Limiting the vectors of entry is yet another methodic layer to funnel all traffic through a filtering/monitoring process. Encryption is another layer.
Security is like onions and ogres--they have layers.
I think the bank card example was misplaced--that's usually associated with a different kind of criminal activity. The reason bank cards work fairly well with minimal security is because you usually are required to have physical possession and the PIN. Most blue-collar thieves don't try to crack the PINs. The white collar criminals tend to fewer but more successful--and they don't target your measly little ATM cards, they go for you identity.
Well, there is something to be said about the nature of human-kind to be selfish--that is "our machine" putting its own existence first. In fact, I would classify this characteristic as a fundamental flaw that makes us, as social beings, rather antisocial. The problem to resolve this oxymoronic behavior (like Asimov's 3-Laws).
For centuries, denying "the flesh" has been a sprititual discipline in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. It stands to reason that Schaeffer would use this analogy to serve his purpose. Though you may not agree with "the punchline," this doesn't negate the problem, or rather, the disposition. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Well said. (Even though Shakespeare was just a hack who strung together well-known quotes).
I think humans want to create--we long to be "God-like." The ultimate creation would be the image of ourselves--AI (and we're plenty fascinated by it, too!). Perhaps this desire is simply the innocent curiosity of self-exploration or, less flattering, perhaps it is a lust for mastery or dominance of our universe.
Are we more than the sum of our parts or is our unique disposition of sentient self-awareness merely an illusion? Those are questions that have been asked for millennia.
Those who dare to believe in a diety (or some sort of supernatural) are comforted (or freightened) by the thought that we are much more than machines. Those who are bound to empiracal thought are limited to their own understanding and experience.
I think the latter is far more horrifying when I survey my own inability to fully grasp the empirical. Afterall, faith abandons reason or they'd call it something else.
Normal? Dude, how long have you been online?
;-)
- Blogging on company time
- Blogging bad about your company
- Blogging about how much you hate your job
- Blogging out information that should stay behind company doors
I think you're asking for trouble. Your freedom of speech covers your political muscle not libel or slander. As an employee, there should be some respect for the boundaries expected of you. If you're fairly sure you have a right to say something, be sure to follow the same rules to which journalists are supposedly accountable: integrity, truth, and accuracy. No one should be able to fire you for that. But, if you're expected to maintain a sense of decorum or have signed a disclosure agreement, maybe you should respect the rights and privacy of the company or those about whom you're blogging. Otherwise, do something to obfuscate your identity--but bloggers love to be exhibitionists.Personally, I think blogging is a bit of a strange habit because I'm an introvert and I don't think the world wants or cares to know about my feelings, political orientation, or how much I loathe/love my job, family, pets, or celebrities.
I do like to post occassional anecdotes, etc. but as a rule, I try to respect others and not type something I wouldn't want them to read. Or, if it's unflattering, I'll try to find some way to not assassinate their character but to find fault in the action.
The world is full of too many myopic opinionated people who care little about the effects of their words or actions. I think, we as internet denizens, should be careful to promote change with careful and constructive criticism and express ourselves with honesty without malice--even on blogs.
BTW: Bloggers suck. (Just kidding)
Maybe--but I see MacOS 9 on desktops and in use all over the place. I can still find software for it--development for new apps has halted, however. I haven't seen an Amiga (dead or alive) in ages. I meant my question quite literally--where is the Amiga and who is developing software for it?
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here--the original Mac has morphed into something else--as any computer and OS should. The Amiga has morphed itself into utter obscurity. Original Macs and the last/latest release of Amiga OS are not the same question and therefore the relevancy issue is moot.
Props to the Amiga for being the first and best of its kind, though. No arguing that. I'm just saying that it died on the vine while the Mac continued through today.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Hey, is that Sushi in your pocket or are you just happy sashimi?
c'mon--cut him some slack. enjoy the irony of the story.
The entire idea of the company's "privacy" being raked over the coals is such classic poetic justice! I hope they feel as violated as the user's they exploited.
Google: Your Fetish Finder
"Crossbar Latch" sounds so anachronistic! How about something cool and futuristic sounding like psychofraculator or something?
I think that this game's best asset is that not only does it have a Mac version but a Linux one as well. There are so many hypnotized developers that ignore these two platforms in favor of Windows only titles or spawn poor Mac/Linux afterthoughts.
It's getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's time to re-think e-mail protocols--or implement the current ones properly: mandatory authenticated SMTP, proper registration of MTAs, etc. The problem is that it's simply too easy to bombard the current setup and the rules shouldn't be political they should be technical. The big players need to lead the way--Hotmail, GMail, .Mac, AOL, (insert other here) etc. (They're also the ones who will benefit the most!). Everyone else would follow suit. If all the rogue or spoofed MTAs out there are left in the cold and the properly registered sources of abuse are uniquely identifiable for blacklisting, SPAM as we know it will become manageable. Of course, like roaches, the bastards would find another way in, but the raging river could be cut to a trickling stream.
Until then, I think this is a great investment opportunity. [Not a plug--just making a point]
Not many of these flops have been recent. The most recent of which were the funky iMacs and the crappy KB & Mouse. It seems that Apple's learned quite a bit from past mistakes. We'll see if that stays true for the iPod Shuffle and the Mac Mini.
I don't think it was fair to put MS Word 6.0 on that list, though. Afterall, Apple didn't develop it, MS did. BUT, Apple should have had some say in the quality control or excercised that voice if they had it. And, yes, it was a big giant unpolished turd. I still have nightmares about it (I was doing tech support as an undergraduate when it came out--I hold it responsible for lost papers and premature gray hair).
Howard Hughes was a very rich man, too. He died with Kleenex boxes on his feet surrounded by jars of his own urine.
It's not so much Apple as it is IBM--even if they conquered the heat problem, the real issue is having enough of the chips ready for a large product line. They're just having a tough time delivering.
I predict, however, that when they do ship the G5 laptops that they will have some sort of mini liquid cooling system. (Sorry, I was channelling Cringely).
Seems like he's got the backward/forward stabilizing working. It's that pesky side to side thing that might garner a need for a helmet. Maybe his next project might be a self-balancing Pilates ball!
Back in my day, we just pirated with VHS copies and all our pr0n was tucked under the mattress where our moms "couldn't find" it. Then, we got computers and they REALLY couldn't find it. I'm just gonna give my kids pr0n and pirated movies and let them make their own decisions. I mean it's a pretty f**ked up world when a kid can't hide or share his crappy copy of "Spider Man 2" that was recorded from a DV cam in behind a bunch of rowdy kids. Party poopers.
MSFT does not care about quality; it cares about quantity. It cares about profits to shareholders and to the the number of units it shipped. It cares about its dominance in the market. It cares about crushing anyone or anything that competes or threatens their position. MSFT's leadership cares about the company's bottom line and nothing more.
If they truly cared about quality, there would be much less malware and and far fewer security holes in their products. They would actually care about this encryption issue. Their lack of response, to them, does not validate the problem as a reality.
But don't worry, Longhorn is coming! (He said with wry sarcasm. )
I actually did that once to a RedHat machine myself. Funny to watch it implode. (Funny like, ya know, driving a brand new car off a cliff funny--funny if you can afford it).
oh yeah! I remember that now!! Very silly.
Though it's good to know that WINE will do what it's supposed to do--execute code written for Windows, it's kinda silly to think it wouldn't.
/ to see what happens!"
Maybe they'll post a story about, "Why do dumb users get to have all the fun? Why shouldn't Linux admins get in on all the insanity, too? Today we'll be doing rm -rf
Let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place..."
I imagine that this would be a feature in only certain cameras. You seem to have too much faith in a not-yet-real technology.
On the bright side, HP will make tons of money in sales to MPs in Abu Graib.