There should be some sort of test for this kind of thing. Questions like: Does it bother you when you see in public A. Someone talking on their phone B. Someone looking at their phone C. Someone who probably has a phone D. Someone
You know, I'll bet you're right. Selling them would be like selling a bridge you don't own, and the con would work a lot easier if you can show that the FCC has you down as the owner.
What do you want to accomplish? Details are indeed the key. If you need to get data submitted from publically available servers, you're opening completely different attack vectors than someone who only needs to get data out of their internal servers to external targets.
Taking as a given no solution offered in the comments will be guaranteed to solve your needs, since we don't know what they are, there are some good safeguards that are standard in IT.
Step 1: Put managed systems between your LAN and the internet. Segregate systems by risk and purpose. Most businesses need to get information out to the internet and in from the internet, so there are many companies offering some sort of protection system to make that as safe as possible. Generally speaking, the more security you want, the more inconvenient and expensive it will be. However, Fortune 500 companies and small businesses alike generally hire someone to manage the protecting systems. Firewalls, intrusion detection, prevention and internet filtering are all standard services better purchased with support contracts than what you can get if you try to do it yourself in house. If you can't get the budget for that, if you're having to do it yourself, then use software written and documented by experts,
don't roll your own.
Step 2: Protect your internal computers from the people using them and the hacker inside. The hacker you hope never gets in should be presumed to be inside already so internal local firewalls, minimum access, minimum services running, all the normal stuff. Virtualization isn't bulletproof, but it's good to add where it improves security. Read only OS media (WORM,) where you can, adds security. The bigger threat is the people using the system, because people are always, always, always the weakest link. MInimize the harm they can do, maximize their understanding of the dangers, make sure you can treat them with respect because they demonstrate they deserve it. The president of the company doesn't have the rights to install something on the workstation, not because the president isn't trustworthy or educated, but because it's safer for everyone to follow the rules.
Step 3: Never consider the problem solved. Study, train yourself, train others and research as an eternal ongoing process.
Good security isn't a system. Good security is layers on layers. People, systems, support, training, research, and organizations all need attention.
There are bits of good news. You probably don't need everything all at once, so you can build it up over time. Good security is attainable. Experts are available. A single slashdot post won't give you the answer, but it can give you things to consider as you build security into an organization.
Can't take it, huh? You come to me for advice, but you can't cope with anything you don't recognize. Hummm. So we'll have to tell you something you already know but make it sound like news, eh? Business as usual, then. - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
If you're not ready for the undertaking but just want some good tips, here are a couple: 1. Use ssh with keys (not passwords) to pull data from less secure systems to more secure ones, never allow pushing. 2. Sanitize data. 3. Minimize attack surfaces. 4. Experts know more than you, learn from them.
Thanks for that. It made me think. (No mod points or I'd bump your post insightful.)
Hammers are great if you want to drive nails, but saws are better for cutting down trees and screw drivers are better for turning screws. The best tool for the job is based on the work you want to do rather than the power of the tool. Saying the NSA likely has the biggest supercomputer is akin to saying they have the biggest hammer. I'm sure the NSA has impressive hammers and impressive supercomputers, but neither is necessarily the tool most important to the job they're trying to do.
That said, I'd love to know what the NSA uses their computer budget to buy and accomplish, even if I couldn't ever talk about it. (Hint, hint! If you're working at the NSA on their computer science projects and want to blow a yokel's mind, please get in touch... and I promise to only freak a little bit when you pop up a message on my "secure" system.)
Of course, rewrite or edit to your heart's content. Write your own plot from scratch if you like, reusing whatever components of the original work you wish. Nothing prevents this.
Intellectual Property is the idea that laws can prevent other people from spreading ideas. It's a fallacy, but not nearly as evil as preventing people from having or using ideas, which would be the fair analogy.
The need for faster transactions might help explain the rising popularity of Ethereum. From themerkle.com: "the average block time sitting at the 14 second mark ever since April of 2016."
This teaches us an important lesson: Always set up an automatic kill-switch. Were I concerned that my computer might give law enforcement evidence against me, I'd set up a reboot or wipe script to run in the background. What I actually do, since my worries in that area are minimal, is set a countdown timer for bed, for those times I'm watching a show while getting ready to go to sleep. If I don't interrupt it, it'll shut down the things that might be playing, lock the screens and turn them off.
That gets me thinking, what would I do if I were/one of the/ Dread Pirate Roberts? Well for starters, I'd run my laptop off of a bootable live CD. I'd probably remove the hard drive completely rather than risk it storing information by some unanticipated method. If it is just the FBI that I'm worried about, then I'd probably set up an an 'innocent' OS install, on the hard drive I'm not using for dastardly deeds, where I played candy-crush and logged into Facebook like a good sheeple. On the other hand, as an exercise in black-hat paranoia, personally I'd be more concerned about the NSA, and I'd expect the NSA to be more likely to mess with firmware to cause an installed hard-drive to store data.
There are plenty of things one could do in order to attract the unfriendly eye of the FBI but I think most of the time the NSA is unlikely to get involved. The FBI is scary, and I hope they never decide I'm interesting, but they paid money to hack into an iPhone. The FBI may be scary to the extent of "if they're after you, you better take serious precautions" but to me the NSA is scary to the extent of "if a machine has ever been out of your sight, consider it compromised."
As a blackhat, I'd do everything logical and possible to prepare myself against the possibility my laptop could be grabbed out of my hands while I'm using it and that I should never leave it behind. That's just logical blackhat defense against the FBI. On the other hand, as a blackhat fearing the attention of the NSA, I would be worried about the possibility that I could be drugged or any machine I might touch could have been pre-compromised. If I were a blackhat, I'd be soooo paranoid!
I'm a white-hat. I work hard to make sure I'm safe from anything seriously scary, but as a white-hat I also try to consider the perspective of a black-hat and how to protect the things I'm responsible for against them. Sometimes I have moments where I'm paranoid, worrying that some black-hat might have gone above and beyond to think of the things I didn't think of. When I'm in that mood, I try to think the way a black-hat might think. Those moments are dark. I can't imagine living a life where you're always worried that some government agency might take an interest in you. What I imagine the FBI might be able to do is scary, but what I imagine the NSA might be able to do is cold sweat, wake up screaming, did they hack my light bulbs, scary!
More painters, more singers, more writers and some people to create art I didn't even know I'd love. I want to spend less of my income on the things I need and more on the things I want and experiences with the people I love. My job is automating things, at least in part, and there is plenty of room for it in my industry. It doesn't look like there is any chance of automating my part anytime soon, more's the pity since I'd rather be drawing and painting. I'd even consider chef, though I don't know if I have the innate talent; Still, I'd be willing to give it a shot.
Retail, fast food and cashiering are fine if that's the job you can get, but they kinda suck. Nobody should really have to do those jobs if there is money to be made in the creative world instead. How does the creative job pay as much? It has to be because that's what becomes valuable due to the shrinking value of obsolete professions.
Drinkable water is tremendously valuable and was worth a lot of money before it was made common. Ditto for electricity. Imagine you're a serf in the middle ages given your first cheeseburger and being told it would only cost you ten minutes of your day's work to have it. For three hours work you could feed your family for the whole day. For a whole twelve hour work day you could eat better than your local lord.
Really that's an understatement. The local lord could, maybe, hope to have something close in quality to a McDonalds burger, but the fries, fresh produce, bread made the same day, fries and soda would have been shockingly high quality compared to what even the richest had available, particularly in the off season. Add to that reliable lighting, the ability to travel hundreds of miles in a day, communicate with anyone in the world, all the facts you could ask for at your fingertips... Our lives are amazing and we hardly appreciate it. Even the worst healthcare in America is better than what was available to kings a few hundred years ago.
Some of the progress will suck. There is no denying that some things will suck for some people. I wish it wasn't that way, but we can't pretend everything will be wonderful. That said, everything has been getting better for most people most of the time for the past several hundred years. I am optimistic the trend will continue.
I disagree, albeit mildly. I have had, and continue to have, work friends who I discuss sex, religion and politics with. They vary widely in their beliefs, affiliations and personal relationships and I call them friends because I can disagree without offending them. I consider both the Tea Party ultra-conservative guy and the ultra-liberal lady as friends. This despite disagreeing with both. Both feel absolutely comfortable discussing politics, religion and personal experience with me because I would never make them feel like what they discuss with me as a friend in any danger of affecting their working relationship. That's how friends treat each other. Some of my work friends are comfortable discussing their sex lives and others aren't. My friends are friends because they know that they don't need to censor themselves around me.
My co-workers who aren't comfortable discussing those topics are still comfortable because I wouldn't bring up anything to make them uncomfortable. I wouldn't be offended, but if they're not comfortable, then I won't put them in a position where they'd feel any pressure to discuss it. Maybe someday we'll be friends, maybe not, but it won't be because they're afraid they'll offend me.
Discuss whatever you want. Discuss it at work (on break or lunch) or not. If you're genuinely just being yourself and not hurting anyone, then I can be your friend. That's about the limit: don't hurt anyone. If you're offending someone, offending my friend or my friend offending someone else, then I'll try to nudge you toward considering the feelings of other people. It's not that hard.
Just be considerate.
Disclaimer: Didn't RTFA so my comments reflect only my reaction to my own experience.
1.) Who determines "illegal?".... problem? Solution. Doesn't even need to be public in the world we live in. Secret orders, secret courts, secret laws. We're already there.
2.) I like the idea, basically. I wouldn't use a name already in public purview. Not "Shadow Brokers" but maybe "Not Somebody Anonymous" or a similar name that people suspect might be the NSA, but can't prove is the NSA.
Remotely exploitable network vulnerabilities shouldn't happen, but there seems no practical hope that they'll stop anytime soon. It would be negligent of legitimate spy agencies to fail to search for them and arguably be able to take advantage of them. Imagine you're trying to find out when an ISIS group is planning a bombing and you discover they're running a messageboard on a Windows machine with an SMB exploit, do you tell Microsoft to patch the exploit?
You never know which of the vulnerabilities you'll be able to use, but if you dedicate sufficient resources to finding them and building exploits for them, then there is a good chance you'll be able to spy on whichever bad guy your agency needs to spy on when the need arises. Getting all the vendors to patch the exploits you find does limit your own agency's ability to spy but you have to assume it doesn't impair your enemies as significantly since the enemy doubtless will have exploits you don't have.
What's the best solution? I suspect the best thing to do is build force-patch worms for every exploit. If you write an exploit, you should also dedicate resources to the task of writing a version of the exploit which pressures the owner of the exploited system to fix the problem. So in this instance, as soon as the attacks started being seen in the wild, the NSA servers should have launched a MASSIVE attack against any and all systems with the vulnerability which would disable the vulnerable systems in the least painful ways along with alerting the owners of the need to update their systems. Instead of getting "your files are encrypted and give hackers bitcoin to recover" messages, the people with exploitable systems should be seeing warnings like "Your system has been temporarily patched by the NSA for your own protection, please secure or update your device to protect it from malicious actors."
The Hajime botnet may actually already be just the thing I'm describing. I'd prefer to see the NSA take public responsibility, and I'm doubtful the NSA is actually responsible for that one, but it is an example of how it could be done.
If I have a vulnerable system, I'd much prefer to see it hacked by the NSA instead of some ransomware writer. Do I wish it wasn't hackable? Of course, but I accept that anything plugged into a network might be hackable. I do what I can to protect it from everyone, including the NSA. It's not that I'm worried about the NSA (because they have the resources to gain physical access if they really want it) but if I do my best to build secure systems, then it's less likely I'll wake up to a ransomware message some morning.
I don't think the FCC should be in the business of regulating ISPs. Leaving aside the fact that they're not elected and ignoring the fact that they're political party based, their only claim to authority was based on the idea that the internet is somehow within "telecommunications."
That's pretty insane if you think about it. What should have happened was the expansion of their authority or the creation of a entirely different agency to handle internet regulation, but that would literally require an act of Congress.
Alas, the SCOTUS disagreed with me. I wish they'd called and asked me before they blundered down the road of deciding the law Congress wrote to mean one thing means something different today. (Yes, I'm still irked by the Areo decision: "sounds similar to what they might have meant if they'd been writing laws about this other thing so we're going to pretend the law actually says that.")
I don't know which is more frightening, the idiots in Congress deciding how the Internet should work, or unelected presidential puppets.
No matter what your party affiliation, doesn't it make you wonder if the federal legislative system is intentionally left broken?
All that said, if you're bailing water out of your boat with a shoe because you don't have a bucket, it's still better than just letting the boat sink. As much as I didn't want Wheeler to be the one bailing water with a shoe, at least he tried to do the job. I don't think I realized how much I could miss that.
In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Funny how bitter that single sentence makes me feel.
I've eaten with my children and the school meals are terrible. Every kid thinks their school lunch sucks, I'm no exception, but by comparison I was given haute cuisine. If it was actually healthy I could nearly forgive it, but the plans are built on junk science.
Being happy with the results of anything coming from our current president makes my stomach churn. Nonetheless, this is a good thing.
I'm with the AC on this. The real question is "what are they paying you for?" If they're paying you for your time, then you owe them your time. If they're paying you for your talents, then you owe them your talents. If they're paying you for making sure work gets done, then that's what you owe them.
I couldn't care less what my employees do with their time so long as they accomplish the goals we set. I'm paying them to accomplish something in a certain period of time. I expect them to meet a certain level of professionalism, but beyond that, all I'm interested in is the work.
It works the same at my house. My kids have chores to do and a time period to get it done in. I don't care when they do them, so long as the chores get done in a reasonable period of time. When I pay someone to mow my lawn (rare) then I don't care if they're on their phone taking on other jobs or doing tech support for Comcast, so long as my lawn is mowed when I need it mowed.
Not every job is measurable like the ones I'm describing so I can't make a blanket statement that every employer should work like I do. Funny thing, there are lots of different kinds of people, lots of different kinds of jobs, lots of different types of agreements between employers and employees.
I've done something like this. I ended up using a CD-R removing the hard drives. The advantage of a CD-R is that it can't be modified easily which removed 99% of the possible ways to mess with the system. (I wouldn't be as confident a USB drive couldn't be modified.) It also makes it easy to test upgrades and deploy them rapidly.
I know it would be possible to do network booting but I've tried it and it was slower and took more effort. For my purposes, I found slax easy to set up, modify and use. I tried out several other distros and justbrowsing seemed better to me. However, after testing it out on regular users, the slax install seemed easier to use and harder to mess up. I think it's because having several options confuses people. (I think that explains Apple's success. As much as I may prefer choice and don't mind learning something new, the average user doesn't want to "have to" make choices.)
If I'd had to expose it to the general public, I would have probably used a little superglue to ensure the CD didn't get pulled out, or just stuck the CD-ROM drive inside behind a cover. Yes a deviant with a pocketknife might still manage to pry open the drive or a geek with a screwdriver might replace something internal or reset the BIOS modification password but I still think it would work better than most kiosk systems I've worked with. It was simple enough that kids and old people almost never complained. (I say "almost" because we didn't connect our kiosk machines to printers. I was aiming for low maintenance and printers are pretty much never low maintenance.)
The one real irritant is that people sometimes wandered onto sites that were "Internet Explorer Only." While I possibly could have overcome some of that with IE emulation in Firefox, I choose instead to just say it was bad site design and that, for security reasons, we wouldn't be providing a kiosk with Internet Explorer. Ever.
If I'd been willing to invest more time, I probably would have built a custom distro with Suse studio. If anybody goes that route, I'd be interested in the results.
Heck yes they will! I'll go to my dentist and be offered a traditional filling for $200 or a tooth regrowing treatment for $800.
I'll choose the regrowing treatment because my mouth already looks like swiss cheese in the x-rays. I expect they'll drill out the damaged enamel and then replace it with the regrowing sponge, then cap it off with something much like they already use. I doubt it will be cheap, but if I'd been using that for the last twenty years, I'd probably still have all my teeth.
Dude, I know English probably isn't your first language, but that couldn't have been more hilarious if you'd spent your life teaching it. Kudos too for keeping a great sense of humor.
Perpetual motion is quackery, but we use it every day with solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric sources. I'll grant you that "perpetual" doesn't really apply when applied to sources of energy that come from a giant ball of gas undergoing fusion, since it isn't technically perpetual. Nonetheless, it is free energy on a human scale. Let's support investing in collecting and using such free energy sources because it makes life better for all of us. I know Apple isn't without its faults, but each time humanity invests in this sort of thing, it also improves our lot as a whole.
Thank you for replying so clearly and concisely. I wish I'd read your comment earlier. I still disagree with that sentiment, but now the questionable optimism in my viewpoint is clearer to me.
The story I remember was a local union squaring off against management. Management said they couldn't afford to keep loosing money. The union said they wouldn't budge on salary demands, the management said they couldn't pay them what they demanded. The union stood firm and the company closed. Everybody lost jobs. Yay union?
Hostess had a net loss of $1.1 billion in fiscal 2012, on revenues of $2.5 billion. In January, the company filed for Chapter 11.
Unions aren't intrinsically bad or good, but Hostess provided the prime example of how they can cause more harm than good. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way, but if the union leaders aren't able to see reality, then *boom* death of Twinkies!
Slashdot Mirror
There should be some sort of test for this kind of thing. Questions like:
Does it bother you when you see in public
A. Someone talking on their phone
B. Someone looking at their phone
C. Someone who probably has a phone
D. Someone
You know, I'll bet you're right. Selling them would be like selling a bridge you don't own, and the con would work a lot easier if you can show that the FCC has you down as the owner.
What do you want to accomplish? Details are indeed the key. If you need to get data submitted from publically available servers, you're opening completely different attack vectors than someone who only needs to get data out of their internal servers to external targets.
Taking as a given no solution offered in the comments will be guaranteed to solve your needs, since we don't know what they are, there are some good safeguards that are standard in IT.
Step 1: Put managed systems between your LAN and the internet. Segregate systems by risk and purpose. Most businesses need to get information out to the internet and in from the internet, so there are many companies offering some sort of protection system to make that as safe as possible. Generally speaking, the more security you want, the more inconvenient and expensive it will be. However, Fortune 500 companies and small businesses alike generally hire someone to manage the protecting systems. Firewalls, intrusion detection, prevention and internet filtering are all standard services better purchased with support contracts than what you can get if you try to do it yourself in house. If you can't get the budget for that, if you're having to do it yourself, then use software written and documented by experts, don't roll your own.
Step 2: Protect your internal computers from the people using them and the hacker inside. The hacker you hope never gets in should be presumed to be inside already so internal local firewalls, minimum access, minimum services running, all the normal stuff. Virtualization isn't bulletproof, but it's good to add where it improves security. Read only OS media (WORM,) where you can, adds security. The bigger threat is the people using the system, because people are always, always, always the weakest link. MInimize the harm they can do, maximize their understanding of the dangers, make sure you can treat them with respect because they demonstrate they deserve it. The president of the company doesn't have the rights to install something on the workstation, not because the president isn't trustworthy or educated, but because it's safer for everyone to follow the rules.
Step 3: Never consider the problem solved. Study, train yourself, train others and research as an eternal ongoing process.
Good security isn't a system. Good security is layers on layers. People, systems, support, training, research, and organizations all need attention.
There are bits of good news. You probably don't need everything all at once, so you can build it up over time. Good security is attainable. Experts are available. A single slashdot post won't give you the answer, but it can give you things to consider as you build security into an organization.
Can't take it, huh? You come to me for advice, but you can't cope with anything you don't recognize. Hummm. So we'll have to tell you something you already know but make it sound like news, eh? Business as usual, then. - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
If you're not ready for the undertaking but just want some good tips, here are a couple: 1. Use ssh with keys (not passwords) to pull data from less secure systems to more secure ones, never allow pushing. 2. Sanitize data. 3. Minimize attack surfaces. 4. Experts know more than you, learn from them.
Thanks for that. It made me think. (No mod points or I'd bump your post insightful.)
Hammers are great if you want to drive nails, but saws are better for cutting down trees and screw drivers are better for turning screws. The best tool for the job is based on the work you want to do rather than the power of the tool. Saying the NSA likely has the biggest supercomputer is akin to saying they have the biggest hammer. I'm sure the NSA has impressive hammers and impressive supercomputers, but neither is necessarily the tool most important to the job they're trying to do.
That said, I'd love to know what the NSA uses their computer budget to buy and accomplish, even if I couldn't ever talk about it. (Hint, hint! If you're working at the NSA on their computer science projects and want to blow a yokel's mind, please get in touch... and I promise to only freak a little bit when you pop up a message on my "secure" system.)
Of course, rewrite or edit to your heart's content. Write your own plot from scratch if you like, reusing whatever components of the original work you wish. Nothing prevents this.
Intellectual Property is the idea that laws can prevent other people from spreading ideas. It's a fallacy, but not nearly as evil as preventing people from having or using ideas, which would be the fair analogy.
The need for faster transactions might help explain the rising popularity of Ethereum. From themerkle.com: "the average block time sitting at the 14 second mark ever since April of 2016."
This teaches us an important lesson: Always set up an automatic kill-switch. Were I concerned that my computer might give law enforcement evidence against me, I'd set up a reboot or wipe script to run in the background. What I actually do, since my worries in that area are minimal, is set a countdown timer for bed, for those times I'm watching a show while getting ready to go to sleep. If I don't interrupt it, it'll shut down the things that might be playing, lock the screens and turn them off.
That gets me thinking, what would I do if I were /one of the/ Dread Pirate Roberts? Well for starters, I'd run my laptop off of a bootable live CD. I'd probably remove the hard drive completely rather than risk it storing information by some unanticipated method. If it is just the FBI that I'm worried about, then I'd probably set up an an 'innocent' OS install, on the hard drive I'm not using for dastardly deeds, where I played candy-crush and logged into Facebook like a good sheeple. On the other hand, as an exercise in black-hat paranoia, personally I'd be more concerned about the NSA, and I'd expect the NSA to be more likely to mess with firmware to cause an installed hard-drive to store data.
There are plenty of things one could do in order to attract the unfriendly eye of the FBI but I think most of the time the NSA is unlikely to get involved. The FBI is scary, and I hope they never decide I'm interesting, but they paid money to hack into an iPhone. The FBI may be scary to the extent of "if they're after you, you better take serious precautions" but to me the NSA is scary to the extent of "if a machine has ever been out of your sight, consider it compromised."
As a blackhat, I'd do everything logical and possible to prepare myself against the possibility my laptop could be grabbed out of my hands while I'm using it and that I should never leave it behind. That's just logical blackhat defense against the FBI. On the other hand, as a blackhat fearing the attention of the NSA, I would be worried about the possibility that I could be drugged or any machine I might touch could have been pre-compromised. If I were a blackhat, I'd be soooo paranoid!
I'm a white-hat. I work hard to make sure I'm safe from anything seriously scary, but as a white-hat I also try to consider the perspective of a black-hat and how to protect the things I'm responsible for against them. Sometimes I have moments where I'm paranoid, worrying that some black-hat might have gone above and beyond to think of the things I didn't think of. When I'm in that mood, I try to think the way a black-hat might think. Those moments are dark. I can't imagine living a life where you're always worried that some government agency might take an interest in you. What I imagine the FBI might be able to do is scary, but what I imagine the NSA might be able to do is cold sweat, wake up screaming, did they hack my light bulbs, scary!
More painters, more singers, more writers and some people to create art I didn't even know I'd love. I want to spend less of my income on the things I need and more on the things I want and experiences with the people I love. My job is automating things, at least in part, and there is plenty of room for it in my industry. It doesn't look like there is any chance of automating my part anytime soon, more's the pity since I'd rather be drawing and painting. I'd even consider chef, though I don't know if I have the innate talent; Still, I'd be willing to give it a shot.
Retail, fast food and cashiering are fine if that's the job you can get, but they kinda suck. Nobody should really have to do those jobs if there is money to be made in the creative world instead. How does the creative job pay as much? It has to be because that's what becomes valuable due to the shrinking value of obsolete professions.
Drinkable water is tremendously valuable and was worth a lot of money before it was made common. Ditto for electricity. Imagine you're a serf in the middle ages given your first cheeseburger and being told it would only cost you ten minutes of your day's work to have it. For three hours work you could feed your family for the whole day. For a whole twelve hour work day you could eat better than your local lord.
Really that's an understatement. The local lord could, maybe, hope to have something close in quality to a McDonalds burger, but the fries, fresh produce, bread made the same day, fries and soda would have been shockingly high quality compared to what even the richest had available, particularly in the off season. Add to that reliable lighting, the ability to travel hundreds of miles in a day, communicate with anyone in the world, all the facts you could ask for at your fingertips... Our lives are amazing and we hardly appreciate it. Even the worst healthcare in America is better than what was available to kings a few hundred years ago.
Some of the progress will suck. There is no denying that some things will suck for some people. I wish it wasn't that way, but we can't pretend everything will be wonderful. That said, everything has been getting better for most people most of the time for the past several hundred years. I am optimistic the trend will continue.
I disagree, albeit mildly. I have had, and continue to have, work friends who I discuss sex, religion and politics with. They vary widely in their beliefs, affiliations and personal relationships and I call them friends because I can disagree without offending them. I consider both the Tea Party ultra-conservative guy and the ultra-liberal lady as friends. This despite disagreeing with both. Both feel absolutely comfortable discussing politics, religion and personal experience with me because I would never make them feel like what they discuss with me as a friend in any danger of affecting their working relationship. That's how friends treat each other. Some of my work friends are comfortable discussing their sex lives and others aren't. My friends are friends because they know that they don't need to censor themselves around me.
My co-workers who aren't comfortable discussing those topics are still comfortable because I wouldn't bring up anything to make them uncomfortable. I wouldn't be offended, but if they're not comfortable, then I won't put them in a position where they'd feel any pressure to discuss it. Maybe someday we'll be friends, maybe not, but it won't be because they're afraid they'll offend me.
Discuss whatever you want. Discuss it at work (on break or lunch) or not. If you're genuinely just being yourself and not hurting anyone, then I can be your friend. That's about the limit: don't hurt anyone. If you're offending someone, offending my friend or my friend offending someone else, then I'll try to nudge you toward considering the feelings of other people. It's not that hard.
Just be considerate.
Disclaimer: Didn't RTFA so my comments reflect only my reaction to my own experience.
Interesting.
1.) Who determines "illegal?" .... problem? Solution. Doesn't even need to be public in the world we live in. Secret orders, secret courts, secret laws. We're already there.
2.) I like the idea, basically. I wouldn't use a name already in public purview. Not "Shadow Brokers" but maybe "Not Somebody Anonymous" or a similar name that people suspect might be the NSA, but can't prove is the NSA.
Remotely exploitable network vulnerabilities shouldn't happen, but there seems no practical hope that they'll stop anytime soon. It would be negligent of legitimate spy agencies to fail to search for them and arguably be able to take advantage of them. Imagine you're trying to find out when an ISIS group is planning a bombing and you discover they're running a messageboard on a Windows machine with an SMB exploit, do you tell Microsoft to patch the exploit?
You never know which of the vulnerabilities you'll be able to use, but if you dedicate sufficient resources to finding them and building exploits for them, then there is a good chance you'll be able to spy on whichever bad guy your agency needs to spy on when the need arises. Getting all the vendors to patch the exploits you find does limit your own agency's ability to spy but you have to assume it doesn't impair your enemies as significantly since the enemy doubtless will have exploits you don't have.
What's the best solution? I suspect the best thing to do is build force-patch worms for every exploit. If you write an exploit, you should also dedicate resources to the task of writing a version of the exploit which pressures the owner of the exploited system to fix the problem. So in this instance, as soon as the attacks started being seen in the wild, the NSA servers should have launched a MASSIVE attack against any and all systems with the vulnerability which would disable the vulnerable systems in the least painful ways along with alerting the owners of the need to update their systems. Instead of getting "your files are encrypted and give hackers bitcoin to recover" messages, the people with exploitable systems should be seeing warnings like "Your system has been temporarily patched by the NSA for your own protection, please secure or update your device to protect it from malicious actors."
The Hajime botnet may actually already be just the thing I'm describing. I'd prefer to see the NSA take public responsibility, and I'm doubtful the NSA is actually responsible for that one, but it is an example of how it could be done.
If I have a vulnerable system, I'd much prefer to see it hacked by the NSA instead of some ransomware writer. Do I wish it wasn't hackable? Of course, but I accept that anything plugged into a network might be hackable. I do what I can to protect it from everyone, including the NSA. It's not that I'm worried about the NSA (because they have the resources to gain physical access if they really want it) but if I do my best to build secure systems, then it's less likely I'll wake up to a ransomware message some morning.
I don't think the FCC should be in the business of regulating ISPs. Leaving aside the fact that they're not elected and ignoring the fact that they're political party based, their only claim to authority was based on the idea that the internet is somehow within "telecommunications."
That's pretty insane if you think about it. What should have happened was the expansion of their authority or the creation of a entirely different agency to handle internet regulation, but that would literally require an act of Congress.
Alas, the SCOTUS disagreed with me. I wish they'd called and asked me before they blundered down the road of deciding the law Congress wrote to mean one thing means something different today. (Yes, I'm still irked by the Areo decision: "sounds similar to what they might have meant if they'd been writing laws about this other thing so we're going to pretend the law actually says that.")
I don't know which is more frightening, the idiots in Congress deciding how the Internet should work, or unelected presidential puppets.
No matter what your party affiliation, doesn't it make you wonder if the federal legislative system is intentionally left broken?
All that said, if you're bailing water out of your boat with a shoe because you don't have a bucket, it's still better than just letting the boat sink. As much as I didn't want Wheeler to be the one bailing water with a shoe, at least he tried to do the job. I don't think I realized how much I could miss that.
In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Funny how bitter that single sentence makes me feel.
I've eaten with my children and the school meals are terrible. Every kid thinks their school lunch sucks, I'm no exception, but by comparison I was given haute cuisine. If it was actually healthy I could nearly forgive it, but the plans are built on junk science.
Being happy with the results of anything coming from our current president makes my stomach churn. Nonetheless, this is a good thing.
I'm with the AC on this. The real question is "what are they paying you for?" If they're paying you for your time, then you owe them your time. If they're paying you for your talents, then you owe them your talents. If they're paying you for making sure work gets done, then that's what you owe them.
I couldn't care less what my employees do with their time so long as they accomplish the goals we set. I'm paying them to accomplish something in a certain period of time. I expect them to meet a certain level of professionalism, but beyond that, all I'm interested in is the work.
It works the same at my house. My kids have chores to do and a time period to get it done in. I don't care when they do them, so long as the chores get done in a reasonable period of time. When I pay someone to mow my lawn (rare) then I don't care if they're on their phone taking on other jobs or doing tech support for Comcast, so long as my lawn is mowed when I need it mowed.
Not every job is measurable like the ones I'm describing so I can't make a blanket statement that every employer should work like I do. Funny thing, there are lots of different kinds of people, lots of different kinds of jobs, lots of different types of agreements between employers and employees.
If I think I'll have to do it at least twice and the program takes less time than doing it twice, then I'll write the program.
If I actually have to do it twice, I add documentation the second time.
I'm more bothered by the implication that the results of an internet search engine should not return results representing what's on the internet.
Dang it, you're right. Chromebooks are one of the best options.
I've done something like this. I ended up using a CD-R removing the hard drives. The advantage of a CD-R is that it can't be modified easily which removed 99% of the possible ways to mess with the system. (I wouldn't be as confident a USB drive couldn't be modified.) It also makes it easy to test upgrades and deploy them rapidly.
I know it would be possible to do network booting but I've tried it and it was slower and took more effort. For my purposes, I found slax easy to set up, modify and use. I tried out several other distros and justbrowsing seemed better to me. However, after testing it out on regular users, the slax install seemed easier to use and harder to mess up. I think it's because having several options confuses people. (I think that explains Apple's success. As much as I may prefer choice and don't mind learning something new, the average user doesn't want to "have to" make choices.)
If I'd had to expose it to the general public, I would have probably used a little superglue to ensure the CD didn't get pulled out, or just stuck the CD-ROM drive inside behind a cover. Yes a deviant with a pocketknife might still manage to pry open the drive or a geek with a screwdriver might replace something internal or reset the BIOS modification password but I still think it would work better than most kiosk systems I've worked with. It was simple enough that kids and old people almost never complained. (I say "almost" because we didn't connect our kiosk machines to printers. I was aiming for low maintenance and printers are pretty much never low maintenance.)
The one real irritant is that people sometimes wandered onto sites that were "Internet Explorer Only." While I possibly could have overcome some of that with IE emulation in Firefox, I choose instead to just say it was bad site design and that, for security reasons, we wouldn't be providing a kiosk with Internet Explorer. Ever.
If I'd been willing to invest more time, I probably would have built a custom distro with Suse studio. If anybody goes that route, I'd be interested in the results.
I'll choose the regrowing treatment because my mouth already looks like swiss cheese in the x-rays. I expect they'll drill out the damaged enamel and then replace it with the regrowing sponge, then cap it off with something much like they already use. I doubt it will be cheap, but if I'd been using that for the last twenty years, I'd probably still have all my teeth.
Dude, I know English probably isn't your first language, but that couldn't have been more hilarious if you'd spent your life teaching it. Kudos too for keeping a great sense of humor.
Ha!
Was that an "in Soviet Russia" joke?
Perpetual motion is quackery, but we use it every day with solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric sources. I'll grant you that "perpetual" doesn't really apply when applied to sources of energy that come from a giant ball of gas undergoing fusion, since it isn't technically perpetual. Nonetheless, it is free energy on a human scale. Let's support investing in collecting and using such free energy sources because it makes life better for all of us. I know Apple isn't without its faults, but each time humanity invests in this sort of thing, it also improves our lot as a whole.
Thank you for replying so clearly and concisely. I wish I'd read your comment earlier. I still disagree with that sentiment, but now the questionable optimism in my viewpoint is clearer to me.
That story was a little local for me.
The story I remember was a local union squaring off against management. Management said they couldn't afford to keep loosing money. The union said they wouldn't budge on salary demands, the management said they couldn't pay them what they demanded. The union stood firm and the company closed. Everybody lost jobs. Yay union?
Hostess had a net loss of $1.1 billion in fiscal 2012, on revenues of $2.5 billion. In January, the company filed for Chapter 11.
Unions aren't intrinsically bad or good, but Hostess provided the prime example of how they can cause more harm than good. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way, but if the union leaders aren't able to see reality, then *boom* death of Twinkies!