Desalination. It seems completely inviable from a western perspective, with the amount of energy it takes. But then you'd forget they have a lot of energy in the emirates.
Actually I agree with you, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression there. I was mostly just referring to that the way these companies say it's a shortage is not even the way economists would coin that term. As you say, it looks like a shortage to them, but in terms of the whole market it isn't really. Of course, figuring out if there is an actual labor shortage is nearly impossible aside from very obvious cases, mostly because of the sheer range of variation in employees and jobs.
Actually, it's the other way around, in layman's terms it is 'Not able to buy something at a price you are willing to pay.', in economic terms, what price you are willing to pay is irrelevant, if you are not willing (or able) to pay the price that it costs, you are not considered part of the demand side of things. Look it up. Of course, in no way am I implying that this is a free market with perfect competition. Most journalists or HR staff are not really economists of course...
About this case: The reality is that if you place a job advert for a programming job, you get lots of totally unqualified people applying to your position. Many of them lying about their skill. Sometimes skillfully lying about their skills. Many of those you would never ever let touch your own projects. Finding a way to weed out the crappy applicants is a real world problem for real world people in IT that are not always so different from you or me.
I disagree, in Linux it was also a nuisance that your tool window can end up in a different virtual desktop than your image, and you had to hunt it down.
For something like an image editor, you *ALWAYS* need your toolbar if you edit an image. Doing this with multiple floating windows can be ok for people like you that only have one app open at a time, and don't have any deadlines to get to. But for others it's a lot more convenient to always have it near your image, even if you have 50 windows open.
Aside from whitelisting executables, anti-virus products have about 0% chance of catching stuff that isn't distributed to hundreds of thousands of machines anyway. All they need to do is change their payloads and exploits sometimes. I doubt the police would even bother asking anti-virus makers.
The Soviets had a lot of firsts, but what the US had been doing has far surpassed Russia. Russian dominance ended with the Apollo program. Even now when the US is in a lull, our achievements in manned and *unmanned* space exploration and commercialization are unmatched.
By the current manned space exploration of the US, I suppose you mean paying the Russians to get American people to ISS?;-)
Look, of course, Americans added a lot, especially in terms of communication systems, material science and military applications. But don't believe our own western propaganda too much...
Don't forget, most of the truly important stuff to enable space travel was done by Germans. The original American space programme was essentially a continuation of the Nazi one. Fundamentally not much has changed in terms of getting something in space (a lot has changed in other parts). We use different fuels, and larger rockets, but it's basically more of the same.
His most recent post is: "We want to be abolutely clear that the DDoS attacks are not and have not ever been orchestrated within CB3ROB/CyberBunker, nor are they conducted under the supervision of Sven or his constituants. He is a press contact for the group, an activist in the web community, and a freedom fighter for net neutrality. "
Looks like a douche, but he is denying responsibility.
I did read it (despite this being/. even). It doesn't do much for me. A journalist paraphrasing something that was said 'in an online message'. So, where is that message? What kind of message? What were the exact words? This is not exactly evidence, more like hearsay. Can be true of course, can also be false.
Since google apps is no longer offered free for domains, we started setting up own email hosting again for small website cients, and I don't think I would want to switch back again. I had bad memories from the past, but things are not bad at all these days. Online documentations are good, repositories are pretty complete and up to date, and open source webmail clients have vastly improved.
It is really a breath of fresh air to make your own decisions again. These decisions can range from allowing more storage for a single account, making a hundred of small accounts, turning off spam filtering (yes, I know you can hack your way around it in Gmail), doing specific types of archival, etc.
Also with VPS's as they are these days, it's quite convenient and affordable, and webmail clients like Roundcube at the lower end and Zarafa at the higher end make things fine for clients quality-wise.
Yes, sure, there is some more setup and configuration to get started, keep things updated, and run backups, but it's not that bad at all.
There is not a single person in the world that can tell for sure they will fall under this magical 'non-commercial' category in a court of law.
What they say is basically that they allow 'in-house' use. Well... that's not covered by copyright at all, they don't need CC to allow it. It's freeware, but in no way is the frontend open.
I read the points he is saying, and I respect Scheier, especially in terms of the work he did earlier.
He makes some interesting discussion points, but it mostly seems to boil down to that we have to fix things from an engineering perspective, and let the rules of thumb about security spread by osmosis.
I would say, while there are still gains to be made at the engineering level, for many organizations serious about security, the low hanging fruit has already been taken care of mostly. Going further would often require complete reorganizations of the way they work, all their applications, and their network infrastructure. That is simply not an option that's on the table right now for most organizations. Also, a lot of the current weaknesses come with at least some level of social engineering. Making sure people properly notify the right people of fishing attempts, pointing coworkers to not wearing their badge, or keeping security basics into account, it is something people will only do if they believe it has some importance to them. A proper security awareness training can give them that. Yes, you can not teach everything there, but if done properly, you will give people more willingness to do something. And that can make a lot of difference when you deal with advanced threats (I hate the APT term, but have yet to come up with something more appropriate).
Yes, 95% of security awareness trainings suck, but lets face it, 95% of everything sucks. That doesn't mean that there is nothing useful to convey.
Perhaps Schneier has always seemed a bit out of touch with the reality in organizations, so it's amusing to read from him (from TFA):
To those who think that training users in security is a good idea, I want to ask: "Have you ever met an actual user?" They're not experts, and we can’t expect them to become experts.
Well, I have met actual users, and I would say they could learn about some basics like 'dont give your password in exchange for a chocolate bar offered by the coughing guy in the trench coat on the parking lot'.
I don't mind pay services, and I don't mind free trials, but Wolfram Alpha somehow manages to rub me the wrong way. It seems that if you have any arbitrary calculation, just about every point on the page you can click asks you to upgrade to pro. Images are poststamp size and hardly readable. They make a zoom button and it pops up a 'upgrade to pro' screen if you click it. They show you a bunch of paragraphs in an outcome, with 'requires interactivity', which you have to pay for, which you only find out when you try to enable interactivity. Why not just say 'requires wolfram alpha pro' or such then?
I don't mind that you have to pay for it, but I do mind that they make it seem like an available function, don't mark it in any special way, and then come with a 'upgrade to pro' window when you click it.
In my opinion they should put some more intellectual honesty there. I would probably pay for this service if it didn't seem they like to trick you into paying all over. If I take a subscription now I would feel bad about being tricked into it.
Yes, it's great news for their leaders, but how much good did that do to the citizen of such a 'super power'. I'd rather be a luxemburgian than a chinese now.
Being a superpower is pretty useless unless you are one of the leaders. I'd rather just have more representation and sovereignity in my local area.
Who knows, maybe all these independent states combined would have more wealth, culture and power than this one superstate... or maybe they wouldn't. I don't know it, and neither do you.
Wow, looking at the responses here, what a bunch of pussies here on/.. Not giving them money? Calling their support line? Are you guys fucking kidding me? That's the worst thing you can imagine doing to someone?
You guys should play more games and watch more movies. First homework assignment: GTA IV and Kill Bill.
I'm no fan of Rambus, but where do you get that? The link you are replying to repeatedly talks about single exposure, and a quick Google gives similar results.
Keeping your wealth in natural objects (gold, etc) is stupid. Sure, people accept gold right now, people also accepted tulip bulbs, people also accepted beads, salt, shells, cereal grain etc. And when hyperinflation hit, it hits suddenly and hard. Indeed in the months leading up to the hyperinflation of tulips, Dutch traders said the real danger was DEflation!
Putting faith in gold is like claiming you're immortal.
Slashdot Mirror
Desalination. It seems completely inviable from a western perspective, with the amount of energy it takes. But then you'd forget they have a lot of energy in the emirates.
Actually I agree with you, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression there. I was mostly just referring to that the way these companies say it's a shortage is not even the way economists would coin that term. As you say, it looks like a shortage to them, but in terms of the whole market it isn't really. Of course, figuring out if there is an actual labor shortage is nearly impossible aside from very obvious cases, mostly because of the sheer range of variation in employees and jobs.
Actually, it's the other way around, in layman's terms it is 'Not able to buy something at a price you are willing to pay.', in economic terms, what price you are willing to pay is irrelevant, if you are not willing (or able) to pay the price that it costs, you are not considered part of the demand side of things. Look it up. Of course, in no way am I implying that this is a free market with perfect competition. Most journalists or HR staff are not really economists of course...
About this case: The reality is that if you place a job advert for a programming job, you get lots of totally unqualified people applying to your position. Many of them lying about their skill. Sometimes skillfully lying about their skills. Many of those you would never ever let touch your own projects. Finding a way to weed out the crappy applicants is a real world problem for real world people in IT that are not always so different from you or me.
I disagree, in Linux it was also a nuisance that your tool window can end up in a different virtual desktop than your image, and you had to hunt it down.
For something like an image editor, you *ALWAYS* need your toolbar if you edit an image. Doing this with multiple floating windows can be ok for people like you that only have one app open at a time, and don't have any deadlines to get to. But for others it's a lot more convenient to always have it near your image, even if you have 50 windows open.
Aside from whitelisting executables, anti-virus products have about 0% chance of catching stuff that isn't distributed to hundreds of thousands of machines anyway. All they need to do is change their payloads and exploits sometimes. I doubt the police would even bother asking anti-virus makers.
So I will finally be able to buy mouse-brain humans for chores around the house?
By the current manned space exploration of the US, I suppose you mean paying the Russians to get American people to ISS? ;-)
Look, of course, Americans added a lot, especially in terms of communication systems, material science and military applications. But don't believe our own western propaganda too much...
Don't forget, most of the truly important stuff to enable space travel was done by Germans. The original American space programme was essentially a continuation of the Nazi one. Fundamentally not much has changed in terms of getting something in space (a lot has changed in other parts). We use different fuels, and larger rockets, but it's basically more of the same.
Well, that, and he said personally that CyberBunker isn't behind this on Dutch media (BNR Nieuwsradio).
Ok, did some looking into it, this is his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/cb3rob
His most recent post is:
"We want to be abolutely clear that the DDoS attacks are not and have not ever been orchestrated within CB3ROB/CyberBunker, nor are they conducted under the supervision of Sven or his constituants. He is a press contact for the group, an activist in the web community, and a freedom fighter for net neutrality. "
Looks like a douche, but he is denying responsibility.
I did read it (despite this being /. even). It doesn't do much for me. A journalist paraphrasing something that was said 'in an online message'. So, where is that message? What kind of message? What were the exact words? This is not exactly evidence, more like hearsay. Can be true of course, can also be false.
Here it is: http://cyberbunker.com/web/swat.php
Not sure what to make of this, doesn't directly sound like something that actually happened. But well, who knows.
So where is the evidence that Cyberbunker has anything to do with this?
I appreciate the things the Spamhaus people do, but they don't exactly have a spotless record when it comes to accurately pointing fingers.
Do it.
Since google apps is no longer offered free for domains, we started setting up own email hosting again for small website cients, and I don't think I would want to switch back again. I had bad memories from the past, but things are not bad at all these days. Online documentations are good, repositories are pretty complete and up to date, and open source webmail clients have vastly improved.
It is really a breath of fresh air to make your own decisions again. These decisions can range from allowing more storage for a single account, making a hundred of small accounts, turning off spam filtering (yes, I know you can hack your way around it in Gmail), doing specific types of archival, etc.
Also with VPS's as they are these days, it's quite convenient and affordable, and webmail clients like Roundcube at the lower end and Zarafa at the higher end make things fine for clients quality-wise.
Yes, sure, there is some more setup and configuration to get started, keep things updated, and run backups, but it's not that bad at all.
So, did you show your children how to hunt before you told them about supermarkets, so they could understand how much nicer the supermarket is?
Have at least part of the functionality be implemented on the server and require a login.
It's simple, and the only thing that so far has shown to be a real detterent to hackers.
There is not a single person in the world that can tell for sure they will fall under this magical 'non-commercial' category in a court of law.
What they say is basically that they allow 'in-house' use. Well... that's not covered by copyright at all, they don't need CC to allow it. It's freeware, but in no way is the frontend open.
I guess you've never tried to write an office suite in Javascript?
I read the points he is saying, and I respect Scheier, especially in terms of the work he did earlier.
He makes some interesting discussion points, but it mostly seems to boil down to that we have to fix things from an engineering perspective, and let the rules of thumb about security spread by osmosis.
I would say, while there are still gains to be made at the engineering level, for many organizations serious about security, the low hanging fruit has already been taken care of mostly. Going further would often require complete reorganizations of the way they work, all their applications, and their network infrastructure. That is simply not an option that's on the table right now for most organizations. Also, a lot of the current weaknesses come with at least some level of social engineering. Making sure people properly notify the right people of fishing attempts, pointing coworkers to not wearing their badge, or keeping security basics into account, it is something people will only do if they believe it has some importance to them. A proper security awareness training can give them that. Yes, you can not teach everything there, but if done properly, you will give people more willingness to do something. And that can make a lot of difference when you deal with advanced threats (I hate the APT term, but have yet to come up with something more appropriate).
Yes, 95% of security awareness trainings suck, but lets face it, 95% of everything sucks. That doesn't mean that there is nothing useful to convey.
Perhaps Schneier has always seemed a bit out of touch with the reality in organizations, so it's amusing to read from him (from TFA):
Well, I have met actual users, and I would say they could learn about some basics like 'dont give your password in exchange for a chocolate bar offered by the coughing guy in the trench coat on the parking lot'.
And suddenly Google Calendar turned useless to me...
I don't mind pay services, and I don't mind free trials, but Wolfram Alpha somehow manages to rub me the wrong way. It seems that if you have any arbitrary calculation, just about every point on the page you can click asks you to upgrade to pro. Images are poststamp size and hardly readable. They make a zoom button and it pops up a 'upgrade to pro' screen if you click it. They show you a bunch of paragraphs in an outcome, with 'requires interactivity', which you have to pay for, which you only find out when you try to enable interactivity. Why not just say 'requires wolfram alpha pro' or such then?
I don't mind that you have to pay for it, but I do mind that they make it seem like an available function, don't mark it in any special way, and then come with a 'upgrade to pro' window when you click it.
In my opinion they should put some more intellectual honesty there. I would probably pay for this service if it didn't seem they like to trick you into paying all over. If I take a subscription now I would feel bad about being tricked into it.
Yes, it's great news for their leaders, but how much good did that do to the citizen of such a 'super power'. I'd rather be a luxemburgian than a chinese now.
Being a superpower is pretty useless unless you are one of the leaders. I'd rather just have more representation and sovereignity in my local area.
Who knows, maybe all these independent states combined would have more wealth, culture and power than this one superstate... or maybe they wouldn't. I don't know it, and neither do you.
Wow, looking at the responses here, what a bunch of pussies here on /.. Not giving them money? Calling their support line? Are you guys fucking kidding me? That's the worst thing you can imagine doing to someone?
You guys should play more games and watch more movies. First homework assignment: GTA IV and Kill Bill.
I'm no fan of Rambus, but where do you get that? The link you are replying to repeatedly talks about single exposure, and a quick Google gives similar results.
Keeping your wealth in natural objects (gold, etc) is stupid. Sure, people accept gold right now, people also accepted tulip bulbs, people also accepted beads, salt, shells, cereal grain etc. And when hyperinflation hit, it hits suddenly and hard. Indeed in the months leading up to the hyperinflation of tulips, Dutch traders said the real danger was DEflation!
Putting faith in gold is like claiming you're immortal.