This is the biggest reason that conventional armies have trouble working against guerilla tactics...The irregulars use whatever works, so they have an extremely wide range of tactical options. We use the approved gear, which provides some high quality options, but a hell of a lot fewer of them.
At least in Vietnam, the VC had more than 10 dead for every American death (600,000 estimated killed VC, 58,209 killed Americans). The point is that the US was quite effective at killing VC soldiers.
To win in Vietnam the US probbably would have had to commit genocide, something the American public couldn't (and rightly so IMO) stomach.
The fact is that there are so many PS3 comercials because Sony wants to make the fanboys think that the $600 they spent makes them own a cool product.
The difference between the $25,000 car and the PS3 is that Sony actually NEEDS a lot of sales for the PS3, where the car company only needs to sell a (relative to the PS3) few $25,000 cars.
Making fanboys feel good about spending too much money does Sony little good. They actually need to convince millions of people to buy PS3s (and actually wait until there's enough of the things so you the several million people actually CAN buy it.
Re:The 360 is console done right, Wii is console .
on
Two Weeks with the Wii
·
· Score: 1
PS3 is failure of marketing.
I honestly don't understand how you can say that. The failed launch and the fact that no one is really talking about it is because it's so hard to get ahold of the damn things. The PS3 so far is a failure of product development, and Sony political infighting. Sony decided to put a Blu-Ray inside each machine in an attempt to prop-up the Blu-Ray into the next-gen DVD replacement. The effect on the PS3 is a large price rise, delay of the lauch, and has limitting the quantities available.
The other strike against Sony is difficulties of game developers in making games for the console. I've always heard it's a lot harder to develop games for the PS3 because of it's strange architecture.
Combine those two and you'll get lost exclusive games, and lost initial sales. Those two factors feed off each other.
Sony isn't dead yet of course. They still have a year or two to pull themselves out of the rutt they've dug. But it won't be easy, especially when the Wii has done so well.
At some point, doesn't it make sense to stop spending Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on Big Bang research?
It sounds like it's more European countries funding this. I don't see the US mentioned anywhere, so at best the US is but one funding contributor. How much does it benefit us to know what happened.3 seconds after the big bang vs. 3 seconds vs. 10 million years?
I dunno.. how much did it benefit us more than 180 years ago when Michael Faraday was screwing around with magnets? How much did it benefit us when Gallileo was looking at the moons of Jupiter and realized that they revolved around Jupiter, and not the earth? Are you really trying to argue that understanding the basic forces of our universe might not possibly be of some use to us?
Scientific advancement and benefits to mankind aren't always a nice straight line where the benefit to an everyday person is immediately obvious.
You are neglecting the rest of my post, where I said the distance should be your maximum reaction time.
And you're ignoring your own point. This HAS been studied, and the best advice has always been 2 seconds. Maybe 1.5 seconds, or 1.7 seconds is OK, but it's easier to just round it up to 2 seconds as the rule has to be easy for people to follow. In any case, 160ft of space between cars is far too extreme
And the disadvantage of keeping a larger distance between you and someone else is exactly what? You're simply wrong, and there's about 30 years of experts that disagree with you.
You are neglecting the fact that it is 80ft/s to a stationary object.
And you're neglecting the fact that human beings don't have instant reaction times. It takes time for your brain to process the visual information, realize that someone is stopping, determine how FAST they're stopping, then make the decision to slam on the brakes hard, soft, etc. That's why you really should have 2 seconds to fully react. Another car is subject to the same forces as you are, so they will continue to move forward at 80ft/s as well
Different cars have different stopping distances. That light little car with the excellent brakes and tires is going to stop a lot faster than a lincoln town car, or your giant SUV. This also adds to the distance you should maintain.
So, I drive with the intention of leaving a couple of car lengths between me and the car in front.
You're following too closely. Avoiding accidents is more about time than distance. You should be leaving about 2 seconds between you and another car if you want to be safe. 55 miles per hour is about 80 feet per second, so you should have 160 feet between you and another car. Cars are about 16 feet long or less, So that's about 10 car lengths.
At 55 miles per hour, 2 car lengths is only.4 seconds. So you're following WAY too close.
I am puzzled by those who think that George Bush is a conservative
Probbably mostly because of the "side of the room" politics that go on, especially in the US. Most of the Republicans will defend him because they sure as hell don't want to be with those other guys on the other side of the room.
The two party system acts as if all politics can be cut into two. Most people seem to pick whatever side happens to support whatever issue scares or pisses them off the most, and ignore all the stuff that their side doesn't agree with. I've known people that vote Republican based soley on the abortion issue, but on anything else they mostly side with democrats. There's a lot of otherwise democrats that bought into the "welfare state" argument and believed it was some massive problem the democrats created, so they vote for Republicans where otherwise they'd probbably agree with Democrats.
I'd imagine there might be other people pissed off about the Republican stance on gay marriage or abortion that vote Democrat that's otherwise vote Republican.
I've seen a lot of "common usage" and "evolution of the language" bullcrap about errors like this, and they don't make sense. If the use of a word is stupid and doesn't make sense, then maybe it should be changed, but we have a clear distinction between the two words "insure" and "ensure".
I'm sure glad we've got people like you around to tell us what's-what. Guys like you don't need books to tell you what's correct. Guy's like you just go by what their gut tells them. That doesn't give you an excuse to declare that they are the same in meaning. Any dictionary that tells you differently is wrong.
Exactly. The problem is these people looked it up in a book. Did you know there's more nerve endings in your gut than there are in your head? Yah, people have told me they looked it up and found out it's not true. That's because they looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut.
I don't understand why someone would go through the effort of downloading movies from their TiVo to watch on a PC.
I'd imagine most people wouldn't use the functionality for this. It's a LOT more usefull for burning the movies to a DVD and watching it on your DVD player connected to your TV though. I'm sure there's a LOT of people that'd like to keep a few seasons of a TV show on DVD that they recorded.
You could also burn something to DVD and give it to your friend or family to watch. Ever had someone ask you to tape something for them, but been unable to do so since you only have a DVR and not a VCR?
It's to the point where any left leaning pot shot gets +5 interesting?
Huh. I guess I just saw an election where the country all voted out the Republicans. If you call that "left leaning", then I guess most of the country leans left now.
Of course anyone else would conceed that that's not really a position of the left, but a position of the majority of Americans right now. You seem to make the mistake that anything that's not a position of the Republican leadership "leans left".
Man has several minutes to evacuate the building as the fire is in another unit. Man casually grabs RAID server because off-site backups are a week old. (We really have no idea if there were off-site backups or not).
It's easy to imagine the panic scenario where the guy is risking his life for some dumb data, but the article doesn't really make it sound like that at all.
Polonium tends to be high activity and is a pure alpha (no gammas/betas) which is probably why it was used.
Not to nitpick, but according to wikipedia Po 210 is a very low gamma emmitter (1 in 100,000 decays). But I'd guess you're right that it might have been picked because it's hard to detect unless you're looking for it.
I don't suppose anybody could tell *when* this radioactive material was made in Russia.
I bet you actually could tell when this material was made, or at least last purified. Po 210 decays into Pb 206, which is stable. Assuming there's enough Pb 206 to outnumber the natural Pb 206 in the human body (Pb 206 is naturally in the environment making up 24.1% of all lead), you could measure the ratio of Po 210 to Pb 206 and determine how "old" the Po 210 is, since that ratio would go down as the Po 210 "ages".
There's another possibility that the natural Pb 206 in the body would so outnumber the Pb 206 from the Po 210 decay that you wouldn't get a meaningfull answer.
Because all machines are coded by a single person with no error-checking or internal oversight by other members of the machine's design team, yes, sir.
Errr.. have you SEEN actual software development take place before? I have, and error checking and internal oversight by others is the exception, not the rule. I sure as hell wouldn't want elections entrusted to companies that're always on the lookout to reduce costs. The long and short of the issue is that the potential for corruption is identical for paper ballots and electronic ones.
Huh? With a paper ballot election officials can manually count each ballot to verify that it matches what the machine count was.
With a completely electronic system there's no such thing. You simply have to trust what the machine tells you.
So, there's a LOT more potential for corruption with the electronic-only system since we all have to completely rely on the black-box to have registered each vote correctly, and counted it correctly.
If the Egyptians knew how to form and pour concrete, why on Earth would they drag huge blocks of limestone and granite around to build the rest of the structure?
Good question. One answer might be that the concrete couldn't hold as much weight as the limestone. The article says the concrete blocks were used only for the blocks on the higher parts of the pyramid. It's probbably a lot cheaper+faster to use concrete than quarried blocks, but if the concrete blocks can't support the greater weight on the bottom you're not going to be able to use them.
The other possibility is just one of time. The Pyramid needs to be completed before the Pharoah dies. They might have had a preference for limestone, but needed to speed up production 2/3 of the way through because they wouldn't complete it on time.
You're assuming that the Egyptians didn't make a distinction between change of artistic and religious expression, and of building and technological advancement.
I know really little about Egyptian culture, but those two concepts are quite different. Maybe the Egyptians treated them the same, but my point is that you're making a logical leap by assuming they treated all change the same.
The little I DO know is that the Egyptians did advance at least in the art of pyramid building. We have several examples of pyramids that collapsed do to poor architecture.
I'm doubting he meant it like that, unless he just happened to know Macaca was a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population.
Actually his mother was of French descent. According to wikipedia:
Allen's mother, born Henrietta Lumbroso, is of French Tunisian descent and some commentators have suggested that she may have learned the pejorative during her childhood and introduced it to her son.
So it's entirely possible, even likely he knew it was a racial slur. You don't need to know the etymology of a word to know what it means. Or maybe he just meant to call the guy a monkey? I fail to see how calling someone a monkey is racist.
Associating blacks with being monkeys has a long history of rascist useage. Anyway, why would you call someone a monkey? It doesn't make much sense. Allen also has never mentioned he thought he was calling the guy a monkey. At first he said he didn't know what it meant. Then he claimed he heard his staffers using the term (which turned out to be Mohawk). And the guy who beat him, Jim Webb admitted to using the same word.
Eh, I don't live in Virginia, but if it's a choice between a guy who's used the word nigger before, and a guy who called someone a maccaca, is ashamed of his Jewish heritage, was accused many times of using a wide variety of racial slurs, and has a strange obsession with the confederate flag.. I think I'd choose the first guy. Have you ever listened to Jim Webb? He sounds like Pat Buchanan.
Sure. Webb is a strange Democrat, but he's also taken a lot of positions that the Democratic party has supported. Changing the approach to Iraq, alternative energy, supporting same-sex civil unions.
I don't see how I could give them the resources to save all email (which I'm sure will include all spam and viruses) as I work for a small company that has a hard time supplying ME with those resources.
Maybe you couldn't do that, but in this case it's more about covering your ass, since if your company is under federal lawsuit things can get messy fast. Let someone else make the decision to not spend the money on proper data retention. Document that decision and your recommendations that they do it properly and not rely on a mass of people to not delete documents. That system WILL fail, even with training. I'm willing to bet if push came to shove management would play dumb and I'd still get the short end of the stick.
You might still get fired, but if you at least make the right recommendations there's a chance you won't, or at least your next job interview you can have a good explanation of why you were fired.
I'd print out and retain that message from the boys upstairs saying 'we can't afford this solution' or 'it doesn't apply to us.'
Oh absolutely. Print out that email, and send it to yourself registered mail. Then don't open it and keep it in your safe. It could quite literally be a "get out of jail free" card. My only point is an admin deciding that users should be in charge of retaining data is just foolish, short sighted, and could lead to a nice firing or worse.
You're missing the point! They didn't win by offering anything constructive, they won by saying "they suck, and we're not them!"
I think it's you that's missed the point. Pointing out all the ways the Republican party has screwed up isn't fear mongering. The way your post reads it's as if the Democrats are a bunch of liars and the Republicans haven't done anything wrong. The truth is if the Republicans hadn't screwed up, and people were generally happy with the direction the country was going there's nothing the Democratic party could do. Any attack ads would fall on deaf ears, people would ignore the election, and the people in power would have been re-elected like normal.
The dems gained seats in the legislature entirely by talking about how people should be afraid of the other party being in control.
LOL! You really must be drinking a LOT of the republican kool-aid. The Republicans lost because they've not done anything about the Iraq war, and people are tired of it. They also lost because they've increased spending by a LOT. Combine that with all the scandals hitting the Republican party, and it's pretty obvious that they've dug their own grave. The Democrats are really the only ones you can't blame for this one. They certainly didn't win seats by actually spelling out contstructive, real-world things they'd actually, successfully do that would actually be helpful in any way.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There's not a lot of leadership in the Democratic party, more like a lot of common interests pooled together. The Republicans have a default leader of the President (though most Republicans have tried to distance themselves from him). ("the republicans want to starve your baby!" "the republicans want to make sure your social security money is wasted on dot-com investments!" "the republicans like to see our soldiers die!" "the republicans work for scary corporations that want to hurt you!")
Funny, I didn't see any of those ads. It's almost as if you just made those ones up to try to exagerate a point. Of course they did run attack ads. The ones I saw were largely accurate, like talking about a Republican candidate being against funding of stem-cell research. It also doesn't help that the jerk-off Senator in Virginia called some guy a "macacca" (a racial slur) and then said "welcome to America" even though the guy was born here, was accused of calling people niggers in College, at first denied his Jewish heritage (like he's ashamed of it), then had to admit to it. The funny thing is he almost won, which probbably says a lot about Virginia than anything else.
So, I guess I can't help but laugh when you try to blame (or credit depending on your perspective) the Democrats for the Republican loss in Congress.
I'm an admin in a smaller company as you - shared hosted email. If you really want to play it safe, I would say make the responsibility of saving email the responsibility of each user.
It's a good thing you're an admin, and not head of the company. Here's how your scenario might play out it court:
Judge: Email 1 is a reply to email 0, but I don't see email 0. These are all emails to Dwayne. Dwayne, what happened to email 0?
Dwayne: Umm.. I guess I must have deleted it by mistake. I do that all the time. I know we're not supposed to delete email, but this email thing is complicated and I must have hit the wrong button or something.
Judge: Ok, but companies keep backup tapes these days. What happened to them?
Archen: Oh I just decided to leave all that stuff up to the users. I couldn't be bothered with buying more tapes and modifying my backup schedule. The backup tapes get over-written every week, and that email was from 3 weeks ago.
Judge: I see. Well you've obviously in violation of the ruling. I can't hold Dwayne here responsible since these systems are complicated, and data retention should be handled by someone specially trained. But since you made the decision, I'm holding the entire company responsible and fining you 1 million dollars. I'm also recommending to the federal prosecutor you be charged with obstruction of justice Mr. Archen. Destruction of data also won't help the case against you.
What I mean is, the tech details of the intrusion are always changing.
Not really. Sniffing passwords over ethernet has been possible and known about since ethernet was invented. That's not new, and anyone unfamiliar with this vulnerability shouldn't be in security. The last time I remember an encryption scheme being broken was WEP, and it wasn't thought to be terribly secure to begin with. There's new vulnerabilities in software all the time, but you can mitigate those problems by keeping up on patches. Any "unbreakable" security measure only remains that way until - not if - someone breaks it.
No security is unbreakable. Some are just harder to break than others. The goal of security isn't to make something impossible to steal. The goal is to make it hard enough or entail to much risk to bother. It's a fact of progress that the strongest data encryption we have now will one day be trivial to crack with a standard computer like everyone has.
Maybe, but who cares if you can break the encryption scheme that the bank uses in 50 years? You want to break the encryption in a day, week, maybe a month. A doubling of computing power every year adds another bit of symmetric key-length than can be cracked. If you could crack a 80 bit key today, it'd take 48 years to crack a 128 bit key. Inside jobs will always have an advantage over outside jobs, but that is not what this particular test was about. It was about the vulnerability of the bank's system to someone from outside.
I guess I thought bank security was about preventing theft from anyone, not just outsiders. Even if this particular job was really that limited in scope, simply educating people doesn't close the hole. The fact is that this bank has a gaping hole coming out of every ethernet wire. Trying to keep unauthorized people away from the wires is a poor solution at best. Maybe it might work for a week or a month, but people lose interest in that kind of vigilance, new employees are hired, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite, how the hell do they use bees?
The bees are trained to sniff out explosives instead of nectar. The article makes it sound like a similar process to training dogs.
This is the biggest reason that conventional armies have trouble working against guerilla tactics...The irregulars use whatever works, so they have an extremely wide range of tactical options. We use the approved gear, which provides some high quality options, but a hell of a lot fewer of them.
At least in Vietnam, the VC had more than 10 dead for every American death (600,000 estimated killed VC, 58,209 killed Americans). The point is that the US was quite effective at killing VC soldiers.
To win in Vietnam the US probbably would have had to commit genocide, something the American public couldn't (and rightly so IMO) stomach.
The fact is that there are so many PS3 comercials because Sony wants to make the fanboys think that the $600 they spent makes them own a cool product.
The difference between the $25,000 car and the PS3 is that Sony actually NEEDS a lot of sales for the PS3, where the car company only needs to sell a (relative to the PS3) few $25,000 cars.
Making fanboys feel good about spending too much money does Sony little good. They actually need to convince millions of people to buy PS3s (and actually wait until there's enough of the things so you the several million people actually CAN buy it.
PS3 is failure of marketing.
I honestly don't understand how you can say that. The failed launch and the fact that no one is really talking about it is because it's so hard to get ahold of the damn things. The PS3 so far is a failure of product development, and Sony political infighting. Sony decided to put a Blu-Ray inside each machine in an attempt to prop-up the Blu-Ray into the next-gen DVD replacement. The effect on the PS3 is a large price rise, delay of the lauch, and has limitting the quantities available.
The other strike against Sony is difficulties of game developers in making games for the console. I've always heard it's a lot harder to develop games for the PS3 because of it's strange architecture.
Combine those two and you'll get lost exclusive games, and lost initial sales. Those two factors feed off each other.
Sony isn't dead yet of course. They still have a year or two to pull themselves out of the rutt they've dug. But it won't be easy, especially when the Wii has done so well.
At some point, doesn't it make sense to stop spending Billions of dollars of taxpayer money on Big Bang research?
It sounds like it's more European countries funding this. I don't see the US mentioned anywhere, so at best the US is but one funding contributor.
How much does it benefit us to know what happened
I dunno.. how much did it benefit us more than 180 years ago when Michael Faraday was screwing around with magnets? How much did it benefit us when Gallileo was looking at the moons of Jupiter and realized that they revolved around Jupiter, and not the earth? Are you really trying to argue that understanding the basic forces of our universe might not possibly be of some use to us?
Scientific advancement and benefits to mankind aren't always a nice straight line where the benefit to an everyday person is immediately obvious.
You are neglecting the rest of my post, where I said the distance should be your maximum reaction time.
And you're ignoring your own point. This HAS been studied, and the best advice has always been 2 seconds. Maybe 1.5 seconds, or 1.7 seconds is OK, but it's easier to just round it up to 2 seconds as the rule has to be easy for people to follow.
In any case, 160ft of space between cars is far too extreme
And the disadvantage of keeping a larger distance between you and someone else is exactly what? You're simply wrong, and there's about 30 years of experts that disagree with you.
You are neglecting the fact that it is 80ft/s to a stationary object.
And you're neglecting the fact that human beings don't have instant reaction times. It takes time for your brain to process the visual information, realize that someone is stopping, determine how FAST they're stopping, then make the decision to slam on the brakes hard, soft, etc. That's why you really should have 2 seconds to fully react.
Another car is subject to the same forces as you are, so they will continue to move forward at 80ft/s as well
Different cars have different stopping distances. That light little car with the excellent brakes and tires is going to stop a lot faster than a lincoln town car, or your giant SUV. This also adds to the distance you should maintain.
So, I drive with the intention of leaving a couple of car lengths between me and the car in front.
You're following too closely. Avoiding accidents is more about time than distance. You should be leaving about 2 seconds between you and another car if you want to be safe. 55 miles per hour is about 80 feet per second, so you should have 160 feet between you and another car. Cars are about 16 feet long or less, So that's about 10 car lengths.
At 55 miles per hour, 2 car lengths is only
I am puzzled by those who think that George Bush is a conservative
Probbably mostly because of the "side of the room" politics that go on, especially in the US. Most of the Republicans will defend him because they sure as hell don't want to be with those other guys on the other side of the room.
The two party system acts as if all politics can be cut into two. Most people seem to pick whatever side happens to support whatever issue scares or pisses them off the most, and ignore all the stuff that their side doesn't agree with. I've known people that vote Republican based soley on the abortion issue, but on anything else they mostly side with democrats. There's a lot of otherwise democrats that bought into the "welfare state" argument and believed it was some massive problem the democrats created, so they vote for Republicans where otherwise they'd probbably agree with Democrats.
I'd imagine there might be other people pissed off about the Republican stance on gay marriage or abortion that vote Democrat that's otherwise vote Republican.
I've seen a lot of "common usage" and "evolution of the language" bullcrap about errors like this, and they don't make sense. If the use of a word is stupid and doesn't make sense, then maybe it should be changed, but we have a clear distinction between the two words "insure" and "ensure".
I'm sure glad we've got people like you around to tell us what's-what. Guys like you don't need books to tell you what's correct. Guy's like you just go by what their gut tells them.
That doesn't give you an excuse to declare that they are the same in meaning. Any dictionary that tells you differently is wrong.
Exactly. The problem is these people looked it up in a book. Did you know there's more nerve endings in your gut than there are in your head? Yah, people have told me they looked it up and found out it's not true. That's because they looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut.
I don't understand why someone would go through the effort of downloading movies from their TiVo to watch on a PC.
I'd imagine most people wouldn't use the functionality for this. It's a LOT more usefull for burning the movies to a DVD and watching it on your DVD player connected to your TV though. I'm sure there's a LOT of people that'd like to keep a few seasons of a TV show on DVD that they recorded.
You could also burn something to DVD and give it to your friend or family to watch. Ever had someone ask you to tape something for them, but been unable to do so since you only have a DVR and not a VCR?
It's to the point where any left leaning pot shot gets +5 interesting?
Huh. I guess I just saw an election where the country all voted out the Republicans. If you call that "left leaning", then I guess most of the country leans left now.
Of course anyone else would conceed that that's not really a position of the left, but a position of the majority of Americans right now. You seem to make the mistake that anything that's not a position of the Republican leadership "leans left".
Man has several minutes to evacuate the building as the fire is in another unit. Man casually grabs RAID server because off-site backups are a week old. (We really have no idea if there were off-site backups or not).
It's easy to imagine the panic scenario where the guy is risking his life for some dumb data, but the article doesn't really make it sound like that at all.
Polonium tends to be high activity and is a pure alpha (no gammas/betas) which is probably why it was used.
Not to nitpick, but according to wikipedia Po 210 is a very low gamma emmitter (1 in 100,000 decays). But I'd guess you're right that it might have been picked because it's hard to detect unless you're looking for it.
I don't suppose anybody could tell *when* this radioactive material was made in Russia.
I bet you actually could tell when this material was made, or at least last purified. Po 210 decays into Pb 206, which is stable. Assuming there's enough Pb 206 to outnumber the natural Pb 206 in the human body (Pb 206 is naturally in the environment making up 24.1% of all lead), you could measure the ratio of Po 210 to Pb 206 and determine how "old" the Po 210 is, since that ratio would go down as the Po 210 "ages".
There's another possibility that the natural Pb 206 in the body would so outnumber the Pb 206 from the Po 210 decay that you wouldn't get a meaningfull answer.
Because all machines are coded by a single person with no error-checking or internal oversight by other members of the machine's design team, yes, sir.
Errr.. have you SEEN actual software development take place before? I have, and error checking and internal oversight by others is the exception, not the rule. I sure as hell wouldn't want elections entrusted to companies that're always on the lookout to reduce costs.
The long and short of the issue is that the potential for corruption is identical for paper ballots and electronic ones.
Huh? With a paper ballot election officials can manually count each ballot to verify that it matches what the machine count was.
With a completely electronic system there's no such thing. You simply have to trust what the machine tells you.
So, there's a LOT more potential for corruption with the electronic-only system since we all have to completely rely on the black-box to have registered each vote correctly, and counted it correctly.
If the Egyptians knew how to form and pour concrete, why on Earth would they drag huge blocks of limestone and granite around to build the rest of the structure?
Good question. One answer might be that the concrete couldn't hold as much weight as the limestone. The article says the concrete blocks were used only for the blocks on the higher parts of the pyramid. It's probbably a lot cheaper+faster to use concrete than quarried blocks, but if the concrete blocks can't support the greater weight on the bottom you're not going to be able to use them.
The other possibility is just one of time. The Pyramid needs to be completed before the Pharoah dies. They might have had a preference for limestone, but needed to speed up production 2/3 of the way through because they wouldn't complete it on time.
You're assuming that the Egyptians didn't make a distinction between change of artistic and religious expression, and of building and technological advancement.
I know really little about Egyptian culture, but those two concepts are quite different. Maybe the Egyptians treated them the same, but my point is that you're making a logical leap by assuming they treated all change the same.
The little I DO know is that the Egyptians did advance at least in the art of pyramid building. We have several examples of pyramids that collapsed do to poor architecture.
I'm doubting he meant it like that, unless he just happened to know Macaca was a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population.
Actually his mother was of French descent. According to wikipedia:
So it's entirely possible, even likely he knew it was a racial slur. You don't need to know the etymology of a word to know what it means.
Or maybe he just meant to call the guy a monkey? I fail to see how calling someone a monkey is racist.
Associating blacks with being monkeys has a long history of rascist useage. Anyway, why would you call someone a monkey? It doesn't make much sense. Allen also has never mentioned he thought he was calling the guy a monkey. At first he said he didn't know what it meant. Then he claimed he heard his staffers using the term (which turned out to be Mohawk).
And the guy who beat him, Jim Webb admitted to using the same word.
Eh, I don't live in Virginia, but if it's a choice between a guy who's used the word nigger before, and a guy who called someone a maccaca, is ashamed of his Jewish heritage, was accused many times of using a wide variety of racial slurs, and has a strange obsession with the confederate flag.. I think I'd choose the first guy.
Have you ever listened to Jim Webb? He sounds like Pat Buchanan.
Sure. Webb is a strange Democrat, but he's also taken a lot of positions that the Democratic party has supported. Changing the approach to Iraq, alternative energy, supporting same-sex civil unions.
I don't see how I could give them the resources to save all email (which I'm sure will include all spam and viruses) as I work for a small company that has a hard time supplying ME with those resources.
Maybe you couldn't do that, but in this case it's more about covering your ass, since if your company is under federal lawsuit things can get messy fast. Let someone else make the decision to not spend the money on proper data retention. Document that decision and your recommendations that they do it properly and not rely on a mass of people to not delete documents. That system WILL fail, even with training.
I'm willing to bet if push came to shove management would play dumb and I'd still get the short end of the stick.
You might still get fired, but if you at least make the right recommendations there's a chance you won't, or at least your next job interview you can have a good explanation of why you were fired.
I'd print out and retain that message from the boys upstairs saying 'we can't afford this solution' or 'it doesn't apply to us.'
Oh absolutely. Print out that email, and send it to yourself registered mail. Then don't open it and keep it in your safe. It could quite literally be a "get out of jail free" card. My only point is an admin deciding that users should be in charge of retaining data is just foolish, short sighted, and could lead to a nice firing or worse.
You're missing the point! They didn't win by offering anything constructive, they won by saying "they suck, and we're not them!"
I think it's you that's missed the point. Pointing out all the ways the Republican party has screwed up isn't fear mongering. The way your post reads it's as if the Democrats are a bunch of liars and the Republicans haven't done anything wrong. The truth is if the Republicans hadn't screwed up, and people were generally happy with the direction the country was going there's nothing the Democratic party could do. Any attack ads would fall on deaf ears, people would ignore the election, and the people in power would have been re-elected like normal.
The dems gained seats in the legislature entirely by talking about how people should be afraid of the other party being in control.
LOL! You really must be drinking a LOT of the republican kool-aid. The Republicans lost because they've not done anything about the Iraq war, and people are tired of it. They also lost because they've increased spending by a LOT. Combine that with all the scandals hitting the Republican party, and it's pretty obvious that they've dug their own grave. The Democrats are really the only ones you can't blame for this one.
They certainly didn't win seats by actually spelling out contstructive, real-world things they'd actually, successfully do that would actually be helpful in any way.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There's not a lot of leadership in the Democratic party, more like a lot of common interests pooled together. The Republicans have a default leader of the President (though most Republicans have tried to distance themselves from him).
("the republicans want to starve your baby!" "the republicans want to make sure your social security money is wasted on dot-com investments!" "the republicans like to see our soldiers die!" "the republicans work for scary corporations that want to hurt you!")
Funny, I didn't see any of those ads. It's almost as if you just made those ones up to try to exagerate a point. Of course they did run attack ads. The ones I saw were largely accurate, like talking about a Republican candidate being against funding of stem-cell research. It also doesn't help that the jerk-off Senator in Virginia called some guy a "macacca" (a racial slur) and then said "welcome to America" even though the guy was born here, was accused of calling people niggers in College, at first denied his Jewish heritage (like he's ashamed of it), then had to admit to it. The funny thing is he almost won, which probbably says a lot about Virginia than anything else.
So, I guess I can't help but laugh when you try to blame (or credit depending on your perspective) the Democrats for the Republican loss in Congress.
I'm an admin in a smaller company as you - shared hosted email. If you really want to play it safe, I would say make the responsibility of saving email the responsibility of each user.
It's a good thing you're an admin, and not head of the company. Here's how your scenario might play out it court:
Judge: Email 1 is a reply to email 0, but I don't see email 0. These are all emails to Dwayne. Dwayne, what happened to email 0?
Dwayne: Umm.. I guess I must have deleted it by mistake. I do that all the time. I know we're not supposed to delete email, but this email thing is complicated and I must have hit the wrong button or something.
Judge: Ok, but companies keep backup tapes these days. What happened to them?
Archen: Oh I just decided to leave all that stuff up to the users. I couldn't be bothered with buying more tapes and modifying my backup schedule. The backup tapes get over-written every week, and that email was from 3 weeks ago.
Judge: I see. Well you've obviously in violation of the ruling. I can't hold Dwayne here responsible since these systems are complicated, and data retention should be handled by someone specially trained. But since you made the decision, I'm holding the entire company responsible and fining you 1 million dollars. I'm also recommending to the federal prosecutor you be charged with obstruction of justice Mr. Archen. Destruction of data also won't help the case against you.
What I mean is, the tech details of the intrusion are always changing.
Not really. Sniffing passwords over ethernet has been possible and known about since ethernet was invented. That's not new, and anyone unfamiliar with this vulnerability shouldn't be in security. The last time I remember an encryption scheme being broken was WEP, and it wasn't thought to be terribly secure to begin with. There's new vulnerabilities in software all the time, but you can mitigate those problems by keeping up on patches.
Any "unbreakable" security measure only remains that way until - not if - someone breaks it.
No security is unbreakable. Some are just harder to break than others. The goal of security isn't to make something impossible to steal. The goal is to make it hard enough or entail to much risk to bother.
It's a fact of progress that the strongest data encryption we have now will one day be trivial to crack with a standard computer like everyone has.
Maybe, but who cares if you can break the encryption scheme that the bank uses in 50 years? You want to break the encryption in a day, week, maybe a month. A doubling of computing power every year adds another bit of symmetric key-length than can be cracked. If you could crack a 80 bit key today, it'd take 48 years to crack a 128 bit key.
Inside jobs will always have an advantage over outside jobs, but that is not what this particular test was about. It was about the vulnerability of the bank's system to someone from outside.
I guess I thought bank security was about preventing theft from anyone, not just outsiders. Even if this particular job was really that limited in scope, simply educating people doesn't close the hole. The fact is that this bank has a gaping hole coming out of every ethernet wire. Trying to keep unauthorized people away from the wires is a poor solution at best. Maybe it might work for a week or a month, but people lose interest in that kind of vigilance, new employees are hired, etc.