He's probably referring to the amount of bandwidth used to move the data. Honestly someone should have been watching for mass uploads or downloads.
The breach occurred in December, was detected IIRC in April. Plenty of time to move data slowly and prioritize what you take, making you less likely to show a bandwidth spike.
Also, it isn't like they're copying HD video here. A detailed register of every financial transaction you've ever made in your life including every time you dropped a quarter in an arcade machine as a kid might actually only be maybe a gigabyte in size, if that.
You can fit every book ever written on a ~1TB hard drive, uncompressed. A 127 page form doesn't actually take that much space to store.
And of course you can stream the data slowly as you point out, but unless the US is blocking sites like weather/news/etc this kind of bandwidth barely registers in the noise. If they let people listen to spotify at work that would be vastly more data than what was likely stolen.
Actually we DO know that China was able to hack the US government networks multiple times and retrieve top secret information, including the F-35 blueprints ( www.rt.com/news/223947-snowden-pentagon-china-hack ). We have no proof that the opposite happened.
You'd have said the same thing about the US/UK cracking Enigma during WW2.
The Chinese might very well be better at this stuff than the US. However, we really have no way of knowing. These sorts of things tend to be covert in nature, and sometimes it is in your interests to brag, and at other times it is in your interests to play your cards close to your chest.
We already have processes for handling things like vehicles (especially aircraft) crossing borders. Unless the vehicle is crossing for an indefinite period of time there is little to no paperwork. It isn't like airlines pay duties on the value of an A340 every time it lands.
For things like repairs/etc you might pay duties on the parts once, when entering the country where the aircraft is based.
I don't see how robots would be any different, until we get to the point where they're sentient. At that point, the robots will be the ones making the rules anyway, so you'll have to ask them.
Look, if you don't lock the systems down, then you deserve the consequences. Good, hard, and from behind.
What consequences would those be? 99% of big corporations have never had a high-profile hacking attack, and they don't do any of the stuff you recommend.
Of the 1% who have had high-profile hacking attacks, I doubt the results cost them all that much. Ok, all your customer credit card numbers are on the web. That costs them money. It doesn't cost you money.
As to tens of thousands of employees... wrong. You do not have tens of thousands of employees.... You break people down into groups. And then you give the groups access to things. You do that and it scales quite nicely. Its very manageable.
Maybe that works well in whatever line of business your employer is in, but my employer really does have tens of thousands of employees, and there are pockets of maybe a dozen all over the place that do things that nobody else in the company does. I can think of one department of about 500 that doesn't have more than 10 people doing any particular job.
We take a top-down approach to major applications and data repositories, but it really breaks down when you try to apply it to every little tool or website people use to get their job done. At least, not unless you want to hire a LOT more IT folks.
As to people that need to use google, what do you use google for?
If I knew the answer to that I probably wouldn't need Google. I'd just go to whatever reference I needed directly, and most likely I'd have a copy of it saved locally anyway unless it were something continually-updated.
I am a big believer in what I call "white list security"... Most people use what can be termed "black list security". they have huge lists of all the things you can't do. That's how an anti virus program works. It looks for bad code and disallows it from running...I do the opposite. I identify GOOD code and permit that to run. All code that is not good and approved is passively denied access. No exceptions.
No question that this approach is more secure when you absolutely need to have this level of security and can afford the cost. However, implementing this costs a fortune. In most industries companies that make this kind of investment in security are likely to just go out of business, since their competitors get by with far less security.
The security-conscious guys at work try to do what you say about once a decade - usually whenever there is a major windows upgrade in-progress (we tend to go with about every other version). I heard countless stories about how with Win7 we'll go with only being able to install packaged software (before that was the story about how we'd start deploying Vista a month after it went gold - you can imagine how that went). Suffice it to say that the packaged-software-only policy died long before it came to rollout time, and even that policy wasn't really a true whitelisting policy (as in with robust code-signing and all that).
When you have tens of thousands of employees it is REALLY hard to stay on top of what all of them do. Inevitably there is some group of 5 people doing something important, but due to whatever wind of politics in effect at the time they fall in some crack in the IT org structure so nobody is responsible for looking after them, and they get missed in some survey. Then somebody tries to lock things down, or tell them they can't do any IT projects due to lack of budget or whatever. The group just complains to their manager who realizes the company would have a serious problem if they weren't able to work, and the policy is simply worked around. They'd buy PCs from the office supply store down the road if that were what it took. It obviously doesn't get that far before some VP screams at somebody and the IT guys back down and give them admin access on a PC or whatever.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that it is completely possible to do things the way you propose doing them. It actually isn't 100% secure even with whitelisting since your whitelisted code could have exploits (just look at gaming console hacks - you might not be able to persistently hack it without breaking signatures but a game with a buffer overflow can still be exploited in RAM until it is patched). But, you can keep bad stuff off of disks so that the system is clean on each boot, and block future attacks with patching.
However, until we get to the point where a company simply can't stay in business without that level of security, there will be tons of pressure to not implement it. Maybe if every big company had a Sony-style attack once a month on average you'd see it happen.
That said, at some point it becomes society's interest to drive 100% adoption. Self-driving cars don't need traffic lights. Traffic lights cost money to maintain. Self-driving cars don't need lines on roads, and could adapt traffic flow to changing conditions allowing much better road utilization.
So you future depends on banning motorcycles and cyclists? Those signals and lines are for them as well.
Does it really make sense to maintain a ton of traffic infrastructure ONLY for motorcycles and bicycles? It would be far more sensible to ban both from public streets. I'm sure there will be places where you can go and ride both where nobody is going to get hurt.
If motorcyclists and bicyclists actually paid for all that costly infrastructure (including the need to build new roads because the existence of manually-driven vehicles greatly reduces the efficiency of all the automated cars on the road), they'd give up their hobbies.
What you propose amounts to a tax on everybody to pay for the hobbies of a few.
In practice I've yet to hear the FDA go after anybody for failing to patch security problems on their devices.
If somebody actually reported an adverse event with a device caused by a virus, I'm sure the device vendor would issue a tested update that closed that particular hole. However, beyond that I've yet to hear of the FDA cracking down on this, despite whatever might happen to be on their website.
The fact that malware is being found in hospital equipment in the wild just seems to support that.
The alternate vision of the future is that, as usual, futurists are all hot and horny about how their technology will revolutionize the world, but it will continue to be far too expensive for society to change over and it will never happen on the claimed scale.
So, I'm sure that a fair bit of change will come about even without 100% adoption.
That said, at some point it becomes society's interest to drive 100% adoption. Self-driving cars don't need traffic lights. Traffic lights cost money to maintain. Self-driving cars don't need lines on roads, and could adapt traffic flow to changing conditions allowing much better road utilization. Building more roads due to inefficient use costs a lot of money, as does paining lines on them.
At some point it will become cheaper to just buy everybody a new car than to continue to cater to the 10 year old car everybody wants to hang on to.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?
A close friend had a stroke which prevented them from driving for a good year or so. I can certainly vouch that taxis and public transit are not equivalent to being able to just drive your own car. If you just need some milk that is a 15 min trip with a car in a suburb, and do you really want to pay $20 to have Uber take you there, or spend an hour walking with a gallon of milk in your hands?
The reason a lot of these devices use outdated OSes is that it has to be FDA approved. I used to work on some hospital networks, and not only were some of these systems running out-dated operating systems, they couldn't have any security updates applied without losing their FDA approval. We kept these systems locked in solitary confinement behind firewalls (with no Internet access), but you still have to be able to get to them over the network to actually use them (and worse, occasionally by remote radiologists coming in over a VPN from who knows where).
Yup. I've seen the same sort of thing firsthand. The mountain of paperwork needed to make changes means that fixes of any kind are only made if they're absolutely critical (and sometimes not even then). On the other hand, I doubt the virus propagating over the network bothers to file a change control form and get 3 pre-approvals.
Even in non-regulated areas vendors get touchy about installing software like antivirus on systems. At my workplace we ended up coming up with a standardized windows image for vendor-provided systems that was designed to be as close to vanilla windows as possible, with only remote patching and antivirus installed. This cut down on vendor complaints, but probably only because we were a large purchaser. Even then we still deal with unsupported OSes and try to firewall them as best we can.
which means a 6 year old Phenom X4 or C2Q paired with a sub $180 GPU like the R9 280 3GB should just slaughter the thing both on detail and FPS.
Um no. I have a Phenom X4 and a PS4. I have War Thunder and Diablo 3 on both machines and both games perform better on the PS4.
You made no mention of your video card. That matters far more than the CPU in most cases.
Also, given identical hardware I'd give the performance advantage to a console for a few reasons:
1. Less stuff running in the background wasting RAM/CPU/VRAM/etc. 2. Game developer is specifically tuning the game to a single hardware configuration.
However, even with those limitations PCs routinely outperform consoles, especially after the consoles have been around for a while. The last XBox 360 ever sold performs exactly the same as the first one ever sold. The PC sold this year certainly performs the one sold two years ago. I was pretty shocked at how well my fairly old X4 PC performed simply by upgrading its GPU to something reasonably modern (we're talking $100 here, not anything crazy).
Could this be used for civilian airports? Most definitely!
No it couldn't.
Technically it could be built, of course, but all it will do is save a few metres of runway. It won't affect the amount of fuel an aircraft has to carry nor the thrust its engines have to produce. I don't even want to think about the failure modes....
The number of meters of runway goes up rather rapidly as you get heavier, since as you accellerate you use more and more distance to get every bit of additional velocity. Even the air force gave up on making the runways longer to launch B-52s. Granted, their solution wasn't catapaults, but midair refueling.
Lock it down so the systems only communicate with known systems that are known to be good. And only through VPN.
Obviously if your network isn't connected to the network it is harder to break into than a network that IS connected to the internet.
However, that isn't very helpful for networks that actually need to be connected to the internet.
When I'm at work it is pretty useful for me to be able to use Google. I look up stuff all the time from websites run by companies who aren't screened vendors for my employer.
Simply closing off your network entirely from the internet isn't really a practical option in most cases. Certainly for really critical networks it should be done, and you'll note that nobody was stealing nuclear launch codes here. The social security numbers of every government employee aren't actually classified information.
And don't get me started on why things like social security numbers shouldn't be sensitive information in the first place. I should be able to give you a copy of every government-issued document I have ever gotten, and it should not be possible for you to impersonate me using it.
Obviously there needs to be checks (especially on the still living) to make sure it's not abused but most poor people don't have life insurance and an extra 10k-100k at death could actually benefit their family greatly.
Yes, it could, and pretty soon it's expected you sell your organs first before seeking public assistance. This is a horrible idea that needs to be snipped in the bud.
Being expected to sell your organs before seeking public assistance certainly is a horrible idea. I'm not convinced that this means that selling your organs is a horrible idea.
Look, the only body who can require anybody to sell their organs to receive public assistance is the legislature. That happens to be the only body who can also allow people to sell their organs in the first place. So, if you can't trust the legislature to do the right thing, then you're up the creek already.
I don't think that we should prohibit something because we automatically assume that it will be regulated in the worst possible way.
Imagine if the enemy could only attack you through one little mountain pass and no where else. All you have to cover was THAT entry way.
Sure, but we're talking about a gate that routinely allows millions of people to go through in both directions every minute, and somebody can pound on it continuously 24x7 and you will refuse to pour boiling oil on them. Oh, and 99% of the time anybody going out isn't inspected at all, though I will concede that this doesn't have to be the case.
Is perfect security theoretically possible? Sure. Are we ever likely to achieve it on a non-trivial network? Probably not.
And while it is difficult, you can penetrate computer networks without ever going through the firewall, or even if the network has no gateway at all to the outside world.
Sure, it isn't a perfect analogy. However, I think that it still holds true.
If you're a hacker in a legally-privileged environment (either the local government actively protects you, or simply doesn't bother to go after you), then the only cost to trying to hack into systems is your own time. Anytime you come up with an exploit you can easily automate testing it against countless targets. That acts as a force multiplier.
The usual offense vs defense relationship also applies. The attacker has the initiative and gets to pick which defense they want to attempt to breach. That means the attacker can apply his greatest strength against the defender's greatest weakness. The defender has to be strong everywhere, but the attacker just needs to be strong in one place.
Of course investing in security will help, but I fear that it is a losing battle against determined attackers. I can't think of any solutions that wouldn't involve essentially dismantling the internet as it exists today.
I've heard of many reasons that people don't donate.
One is just laziness. Depending on the jurisdiction explicit consent is required, and that takes some amount of effort. There have been laws passed in many places to eliminate this barrier, such as requiring people to answer yes/no when renewing a driver's license (which thus requires equal effort to accept/decline), or moving to a default-consent model.
Another I've heard is fear that a doctor will act against their interests if somebody needs the kidney. The typical feared scenario is that a volunteer donor is in a coma and the president of the US gets shot and ends up in the same hospital, and happens to be a match for an organ that they need. A doctor might decide that the patient with the organs is beyond hope, and decide to give the organ to the president instead. If the patient were not a volunteer donor then that incentive to pull the plug wouldn't exist. Most organ donation proponents will point out that this cannot legally happen.
And of course religion is a motivation in some cases, though most major religious organizations endorse organ donation.
I don't see anything wrong with "you" - but I do see something wrong with "this."
You're just doing what everybody does. Obviously biology has built that kind of thinking into our brains. I certainly can't fault you for being normal.
The problem with the resulting situation is that lots of people end up not being able to get kidneys, because they can't find somebody else willing to get them into the system by donating an organ. Organ donors are rare in general.
Why would I give a kidney (requiring life threatening surgery) to some total stranger with absolutely no benefit to myself?
Suppose that stranger could offer you $200k for that kidney? Maybe you'd think about it more then.
We do things for strangers all the time. Last night somebody kept walking over to the table where I was eating and refilling my drink, and he didn't even know my name. A complete stranger even cooked me a very nice dinner. Of course, when it was all over I paid them for the service they performed.
I'm not suggesting banning targeted donations of kidneys. However, if we allowed people to sell their kidneys I bet there would be a LOT more kidneys going around. It would probably save insurance companies money as well, since that one-time payment would be cheaper than all the dialysis it eliminates the need for.
Of course we should be spending on research on artificial organs and all that as well.
But, it all starts with agreeing that we could be doing better than we're doing today.
That sounds nice, but NO society on Earth actually works this way, at least not with regard to medical care. Try to tell me with a straight face that some member of a royal family in Europe waits the same number of days on average for an organ as the average citizen, etc.
I'd actually agree with you regarding the application of criminal law. However, I don't see why the rich shouldn't be able to live longer than the poor. I do fully support raising the standard of care for the poor, and socialized medicine, and all that. However, I don't see any need to put a gun to the wealthy and prevent them from actively spending more on their care than society allots for everybody.
I'm not a big fan of trickle-down but in this particular case I think it would actually work. However, I'm all for having socialized insurance that would pay for an organ for anybody who needed it and where the organ was likely to make a difference in their outcome.
If you cannot see a flaw in the plan to give a monetary incentive to people for the case when one of their relatives dies, I can.
Insurance already creates that incentive today. That is why the first people who get investigated when somebody dies are their heirs. I don't really see organ donations changing that.
However, as with insurance it probably would require making the money from organ sales go straight to a beneficiary and skipping the estate. Otherwise anybody in heavy debt will probably elect to just let their organs rot, since it won't benefit anybody they actually care about.
After all, what am I going to do with the money when I'm dead? Bury it with me? OK, it could give me a good feeling if I knew it would help my relatives. But then it's about helping others, not about money, and this should be the starting point of reasoning about this issue.
In the one case it is about helping strangers (the likely recipients of your organs), and in the other case it is about helping your family (the likely recipients of the money raised from selling your organs).
People will do a lot more for their family than strangers.
Also, in this case we're talking about kidney donations while the donor is still alive. It is very rare to have somebody walk into a hospital and just ask if they can donate a kidney for anybody who happens to need it. However, that is how many kidney transplants actually happen for family/friends. A nine-way deal was needed in this case because there were nine pairs of donors and intended recipients - none of those donors were stepping up to donate until somebody THEY knew needed their kidney.
Aren't network configurations supposed to have a single default gateway?
Nope. Multi-homed networks aren't that unusual. Every host has a single default gateway, but it doesn't have to be the same for every host on the network.
In any case, it isn't all that difficult to do with DHCP, since one server tells every host on the network what to do. You just can't unpack your router and plug it in without configuring it.
However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?
The problem is with the content side. Exclusive deals really tend to be anti-consumer, like most forms of bundling. You want to watch your favorite show, well to do that you have to purchase some service at an exhorbitant price that gives you that one show plus 500 others you don't care about. Want that channel on your cable? No problem, just pay an extra $30/mo for that channel and 14 more you don't care about. Want a Pepsi to go with your Big Mac? No problem - just forego the combo price, stop at two places, and eat in your car since nobody allows outside food or drink.
The market would only work better if exclusive deals were banned. If people don't want to drink RC cola, then they won't buy it, and most places won't bother to stock it. However, there will no longer be a financial incentive for McDonald's to ONLY carry Coke products, when some consumers might be more likely to purchase a drink if they offered Pepsi as well, and so on.
I'm not saying that Apple should be forced to sell their music on Android, or on Linux, or on Blackberry, or on Palm Pilots, or on Windows 95 and whatever other oddball platform people want to buy them on. However, there shouldn't be any barriers to Apple putting their product on these platforms, and there shouldn't be any barriers to those who sell to Apple also selling to others who ARE willing to put their product on those platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
He's probably referring to the amount of bandwidth used to move the data. Honestly someone should have been watching for mass uploads or downloads.
The breach occurred in December, was detected IIRC in April. Plenty of time to move data slowly and prioritize what you take, making you less likely to show a bandwidth spike.
Also, it isn't like they're copying HD video here. A detailed register of every financial transaction you've ever made in your life including every time you dropped a quarter in an arcade machine as a kid might actually only be maybe a gigabyte in size, if that.
You can fit every book ever written on a ~1TB hard drive, uncompressed. A 127 page form doesn't actually take that much space to store.
And of course you can stream the data slowly as you point out, but unless the US is blocking sites like weather/news/etc this kind of bandwidth barely registers in the noise. If they let people listen to spotify at work that would be vastly more data than what was likely stolen.
Actually we DO know that China was able to hack the US government networks multiple times and retrieve top secret information, including the F-35 blueprints ( www.rt.com/news/223947-snowden-pentagon-china-hack ). We have no proof that the opposite happened.
You'd have said the same thing about the US/UK cracking Enigma during WW2.
The Chinese might very well be better at this stuff than the US. However, we really have no way of knowing. These sorts of things tend to be covert in nature, and sometimes it is in your interests to brag, and at other times it is in your interests to play your cards close to your chest.
We already have processes for handling things like vehicles (especially aircraft) crossing borders. Unless the vehicle is crossing for an indefinite period of time there is little to no paperwork. It isn't like airlines pay duties on the value of an A340 every time it lands.
For things like repairs/etc you might pay duties on the parts once, when entering the country where the aircraft is based.
I don't see how robots would be any different, until we get to the point where they're sentient. At that point, the robots will be the ones making the rules anyway, so you'll have to ask them.
Look, if you don't lock the systems down, then you deserve the consequences. Good, hard, and from behind.
What consequences would those be? 99% of big corporations have never had a high-profile hacking attack, and they don't do any of the stuff you recommend.
Of the 1% who have had high-profile hacking attacks, I doubt the results cost them all that much. Ok, all your customer credit card numbers are on the web. That costs them money. It doesn't cost you money.
As to tens of thousands of employees... wrong. You do not have tens of thousands of employees. ... You break people down into groups. And then you give the groups access to things. You do that and it scales quite nicely. Its very manageable.
Maybe that works well in whatever line of business your employer is in, but my employer really does have tens of thousands of employees, and there are pockets of maybe a dozen all over the place that do things that nobody else in the company does. I can think of one department of about 500 that doesn't have more than 10 people doing any particular job.
We take a top-down approach to major applications and data repositories, but it really breaks down when you try to apply it to every little tool or website people use to get their job done. At least, not unless you want to hire a LOT more IT folks.
As to people that need to use google, what do you use google for?
If I knew the answer to that I probably wouldn't need Google. I'd just go to whatever reference I needed directly, and most likely I'd have a copy of it saved locally anyway unless it were something continually-updated.
I am a big believer in what I call "white list security"... Most people use what can be termed "black list security". they have huge lists of all the things you can't do. That's how an anti virus program works. It looks for bad code and disallows it from running...I do the opposite. I identify GOOD code and permit that to run. All code that is not good and approved is passively denied access. No exceptions.
No question that this approach is more secure when you absolutely need to have this level of security and can afford the cost. However, implementing this costs a fortune. In most industries companies that make this kind of investment in security are likely to just go out of business, since their competitors get by with far less security.
The security-conscious guys at work try to do what you say about once a decade - usually whenever there is a major windows upgrade in-progress (we tend to go with about every other version). I heard countless stories about how with Win7 we'll go with only being able to install packaged software (before that was the story about how we'd start deploying Vista a month after it went gold - you can imagine how that went). Suffice it to say that the packaged-software-only policy died long before it came to rollout time, and even that policy wasn't really a true whitelisting policy (as in with robust code-signing and all that).
When you have tens of thousands of employees it is REALLY hard to stay on top of what all of them do. Inevitably there is some group of 5 people doing something important, but due to whatever wind of politics in effect at the time they fall in some crack in the IT org structure so nobody is responsible for looking after them, and they get missed in some survey. Then somebody tries to lock things down, or tell them they can't do any IT projects due to lack of budget or whatever. The group just complains to their manager who realizes the company would have a serious problem if they weren't able to work, and the policy is simply worked around. They'd buy PCs from the office supply store down the road if that were what it took. It obviously doesn't get that far before some VP screams at somebody and the IT guys back down and give them admin access on a PC or whatever.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that it is completely possible to do things the way you propose doing them. It actually isn't 100% secure even with whitelisting since your whitelisted code could have exploits (just look at gaming console hacks - you might not be able to persistently hack it without breaking signatures but a game with a buffer overflow can still be exploited in RAM until it is patched). But, you can keep bad stuff off of disks so that the system is clean on each boot, and block future attacks with patching.
However, until we get to the point where a company simply can't stay in business without that level of security, there will be tons of pressure to not implement it. Maybe if every big company had a Sony-style attack once a month on average you'd see it happen.
Clearly somebody owns a 3D printing company and is looking to get grants from the EPA and DARPA, etc.
That said, at some point it becomes society's interest to drive 100% adoption. Self-driving cars don't need traffic lights. Traffic lights cost money to maintain. Self-driving cars don't need lines on roads, and could adapt traffic flow to changing conditions allowing much better road utilization.
So you future depends on banning motorcycles and cyclists? Those signals and lines are for them as well.
Does it really make sense to maintain a ton of traffic infrastructure ONLY for motorcycles and bicycles? It would be far more sensible to ban both from public streets. I'm sure there will be places where you can go and ride both where nobody is going to get hurt.
If motorcyclists and bicyclists actually paid for all that costly infrastructure (including the need to build new roads because the existence of manually-driven vehicles greatly reduces the efficiency of all the automated cars on the road), they'd give up their hobbies.
What you propose amounts to a tax on everybody to pay for the hobbies of a few.
In practice I've yet to hear the FDA go after anybody for failing to patch security problems on their devices.
If somebody actually reported an adverse event with a device caused by a virus, I'm sure the device vendor would issue a tested update that closed that particular hole. However, beyond that I've yet to hear of the FDA cracking down on this, despite whatever might happen to be on their website.
The fact that malware is being found in hospital equipment in the wild just seems to support that.
The alternate vision of the future is that, as usual, futurists are all hot and horny about how their technology will revolutionize the world, but it will continue to be far too expensive for society to change over and it will never happen on the claimed scale.
So, I'm sure that a fair bit of change will come about even without 100% adoption.
That said, at some point it becomes society's interest to drive 100% adoption. Self-driving cars don't need traffic lights. Traffic lights cost money to maintain. Self-driving cars don't need lines on roads, and could adapt traffic flow to changing conditions allowing much better road utilization. Building more roads due to inefficient use costs a lot of money, as does paining lines on them.
At some point it will become cheaper to just buy everybody a new car than to continue to cater to the 10 year old car everybody wants to hang on to.
Similarly, the elderly would participate more in life - go out, party, and socialize a lot more.
Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?
A close friend had a stroke which prevented them from driving for a good year or so. I can certainly vouch that taxis and public transit are not equivalent to being able to just drive your own car. If you just need some milk that is a 15 min trip with a car in a suburb, and do you really want to pay $20 to have Uber take you there, or spend an hour walking with a gallon of milk in your hands?
The reason a lot of these devices use outdated OSes is that it has to be FDA approved. I used to work on some hospital networks, and not only were some of these systems running out-dated operating systems, they couldn't have any security updates applied without losing their FDA approval. We kept these systems locked in solitary confinement behind firewalls (with no Internet access), but you still have to be able to get to them over the network to actually use them (and worse, occasionally by remote radiologists coming in over a VPN from who knows where).
Yup. I've seen the same sort of thing firsthand. The mountain of paperwork needed to make changes means that fixes of any kind are only made if they're absolutely critical (and sometimes not even then). On the other hand, I doubt the virus propagating over the network bothers to file a change control form and get 3 pre-approvals.
Even in non-regulated areas vendors get touchy about installing software like antivirus on systems. At my workplace we ended up coming up with a standardized windows image for vendor-provided systems that was designed to be as close to vanilla windows as possible, with only remote patching and antivirus installed. This cut down on vendor complaints, but probably only because we were a large purchaser. Even then we still deal with unsupported OSes and try to firewall them as best we can.
which means a 6 year old Phenom X4 or C2Q paired with a sub $180 GPU like the R9 280 3GB should just slaughter the thing both on detail and FPS.
Um no. I have a Phenom X4 and a PS4. I have War Thunder and Diablo 3 on both machines and both games perform better on the PS4.
You made no mention of your video card. That matters far more than the CPU in most cases.
Also, given identical hardware I'd give the performance advantage to a console for a few reasons:
1. Less stuff running in the background wasting RAM/CPU/VRAM/etc.
2. Game developer is specifically tuning the game to a single hardware configuration.
However, even with those limitations PCs routinely outperform consoles, especially after the consoles have been around for a while. The last XBox 360 ever sold performs exactly the same as the first one ever sold. The PC sold this year certainly performs the one sold two years ago. I was pretty shocked at how well my fairly old X4 PC performed simply by upgrading its GPU to something reasonably modern (we're talking $100 here, not anything crazy).
Could this be used for civilian airports? Most definitely!
No it couldn't.
Technically it could be built, of course, but all it will do is save a few metres of runway. It won't affect the amount of fuel an aircraft has to carry nor the thrust its engines have to produce. I don't even want to think about the failure modes....
The number of meters of runway goes up rather rapidly as you get heavier, since as you accellerate you use more and more distance to get every bit of additional velocity. Even the air force gave up on making the runways longer to launch B-52s. Granted, their solution wasn't catapaults, but midair refueling.
Lock it down so the systems only communicate with known systems that are known to be good. And only through VPN.
Obviously if your network isn't connected to the network it is harder to break into than a network that IS connected to the internet.
However, that isn't very helpful for networks that actually need to be connected to the internet.
When I'm at work it is pretty useful for me to be able to use Google. I look up stuff all the time from websites run by companies who aren't screened vendors for my employer.
Simply closing off your network entirely from the internet isn't really a practical option in most cases. Certainly for really critical networks it should be done, and you'll note that nobody was stealing nuclear launch codes here. The social security numbers of every government employee aren't actually classified information.
And don't get me started on why things like social security numbers shouldn't be sensitive information in the first place. I should be able to give you a copy of every government-issued document I have ever gotten, and it should not be possible for you to impersonate me using it.
Yes, it could, and pretty soon it's expected you sell your organs first before seeking public assistance. This is a horrible idea that needs to be snipped in the bud.
Being expected to sell your organs before seeking public assistance certainly is a horrible idea. I'm not convinced that this means that selling your organs is a horrible idea.
Look, the only body who can require anybody to sell their organs to receive public assistance is the legislature. That happens to be the only body who can also allow people to sell their organs in the first place. So, if you can't trust the legislature to do the right thing, then you're up the creek already.
I don't think that we should prohibit something because we automatically assume that it will be regulated in the worst possible way.
Imagine if the enemy could only attack you through one little mountain pass and no where else. All you have to cover was THAT entry way.
Sure, but we're talking about a gate that routinely allows millions of people to go through in both directions every minute, and somebody can pound on it continuously 24x7 and you will refuse to pour boiling oil on them. Oh, and 99% of the time anybody going out isn't inspected at all, though I will concede that this doesn't have to be the case.
Is perfect security theoretically possible? Sure. Are we ever likely to achieve it on a non-trivial network? Probably not.
And while it is difficult, you can penetrate computer networks without ever going through the firewall, or even if the network has no gateway at all to the outside world.
Sure, it isn't a perfect analogy. However, I think that it still holds true.
If you're a hacker in a legally-privileged environment (either the local government actively protects you, or simply doesn't bother to go after you), then the only cost to trying to hack into systems is your own time. Anytime you come up with an exploit you can easily automate testing it against countless targets. That acts as a force multiplier.
The usual offense vs defense relationship also applies. The attacker has the initiative and gets to pick which defense they want to attempt to breach. That means the attacker can apply his greatest strength against the defender's greatest weakness. The defender has to be strong everywhere, but the attacker just needs to be strong in one place.
Of course investing in security will help, but I fear that it is a losing battle against determined attackers. I can't think of any solutions that wouldn't involve essentially dismantling the internet as it exists today.
I've heard of many reasons that people don't donate.
One is just laziness. Depending on the jurisdiction explicit consent is required, and that takes some amount of effort. There have been laws passed in many places to eliminate this barrier, such as requiring people to answer yes/no when renewing a driver's license (which thus requires equal effort to accept/decline), or moving to a default-consent model.
Another I've heard is fear that a doctor will act against their interests if somebody needs the kidney. The typical feared scenario is that a volunteer donor is in a coma and the president of the US gets shot and ends up in the same hospital, and happens to be a match for an organ that they need. A doctor might decide that the patient with the organs is beyond hope, and decide to give the organ to the president instead. If the patient were not a volunteer donor then that incentive to pull the plug wouldn't exist. Most organ donation proponents will point out that this cannot legally happen.
And of course religion is a motivation in some cases, though most major religious organizations endorse organ donation.
I see nothing wrong with this.
I don't see anything wrong with "you" - but I do see something wrong with "this."
You're just doing what everybody does. Obviously biology has built that kind of thinking into our brains. I certainly can't fault you for being normal.
The problem with the resulting situation is that lots of people end up not being able to get kidneys, because they can't find somebody else willing to get them into the system by donating an organ. Organ donors are rare in general.
Why would I give a kidney (requiring life threatening surgery) to some total stranger with absolutely no benefit to myself?
Suppose that stranger could offer you $200k for that kidney? Maybe you'd think about it more then.
We do things for strangers all the time. Last night somebody kept walking over to the table where I was eating and refilling my drink, and he didn't even know my name. A complete stranger even cooked me a very nice dinner. Of course, when it was all over I paid them for the service they performed.
I'm not suggesting banning targeted donations of kidneys. However, if we allowed people to sell their kidneys I bet there would be a LOT more kidneys going around. It would probably save insurance companies money as well, since that one-time payment would be cheaper than all the dialysis it eliminates the need for.
Of course we should be spending on research on artificial organs and all that as well.
But, it all starts with agreeing that we could be doing better than we're doing today.
That sounds nice, but NO society on Earth actually works this way, at least not with regard to medical care. Try to tell me with a straight face that some member of a royal family in Europe waits the same number of days on average for an organ as the average citizen, etc.
I'd actually agree with you regarding the application of criminal law. However, I don't see why the rich shouldn't be able to live longer than the poor. I do fully support raising the standard of care for the poor, and socialized medicine, and all that. However, I don't see any need to put a gun to the wealthy and prevent them from actively spending more on their care than society allots for everybody.
I'm not a big fan of trickle-down but in this particular case I think it would actually work. However, I'm all for having socialized insurance that would pay for an organ for anybody who needed it and where the organ was likely to make a difference in their outcome.
If you cannot see a flaw in the plan to give a monetary incentive to people for the case when one of their relatives dies, I can.
Insurance already creates that incentive today. That is why the first people who get investigated when somebody dies are their heirs. I don't really see organ donations changing that.
However, as with insurance it probably would require making the money from organ sales go straight to a beneficiary and skipping the estate. Otherwise anybody in heavy debt will probably elect to just let their organs rot, since it won't benefit anybody they actually care about.
After all, what am I going to do with the money when I'm dead? Bury it with me? OK, it could give me a good feeling if I knew it would help my relatives. But then it's about helping others, not about money, and this should be the starting point of reasoning about this issue.
In the one case it is about helping strangers (the likely recipients of your organs), and in the other case it is about helping your family (the likely recipients of the money raised from selling your organs).
People will do a lot more for their family than strangers.
Also, in this case we're talking about kidney donations while the donor is still alive. It is very rare to have somebody walk into a hospital and just ask if they can donate a kidney for anybody who happens to need it. However, that is how many kidney transplants actually happen for family/friends. A nine-way deal was needed in this case because there were nine pairs of donors and intended recipients - none of those donors were stepping up to donate until somebody THEY knew needed their kidney.
Aren't network configurations supposed to have a single default gateway?
Nope. Multi-homed networks aren't that unusual. Every host has a single default gateway, but it doesn't have to be the same for every host on the network.
In any case, it isn't all that difficult to do with DHCP, since one server tells every host on the network what to do. You just can't unpack your router and plug it in without configuring it.
However, with platform-based subscriptions, I just can't get all that upset about it. I don't own an Android device, so I won't subscribe to Google Play. Also, there are a wealth of quality subscription services out there that run on all of the popular platforms. So what's the big deal?
The problem is with the content side. Exclusive deals really tend to be anti-consumer, like most forms of bundling. You want to watch your favorite show, well to do that you have to purchase some service at an exhorbitant price that gives you that one show plus 500 others you don't care about. Want that channel on your cable? No problem, just pay an extra $30/mo for that channel and 14 more you don't care about. Want a Pepsi to go with your Big Mac? No problem - just forego the combo price, stop at two places, and eat in your car since nobody allows outside food or drink.
The market would only work better if exclusive deals were banned. If people don't want to drink RC cola, then they won't buy it, and most places won't bother to stock it. However, there will no longer be a financial incentive for McDonald's to ONLY carry Coke products, when some consumers might be more likely to purchase a drink if they offered Pepsi as well, and so on.
I'm not saying that Apple should be forced to sell their music on Android, or on Linux, or on Blackberry, or on Palm Pilots, or on Windows 95 and whatever other oddball platform people want to buy them on. However, there shouldn't be any barriers to Apple putting their product on these platforms, and there shouldn't be any barriers to those who sell to Apple also selling to others who ARE willing to put their product on those platforms.