My question is about defining "computer security" in relation to public perceptions vs technical facts.
It was reported in 2006 that the NSA was keeping massive databases of American's phone calls and metadata: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news...
Obviously, Snowden's revelations were much more heavily reported, and contained more info, but the public was shocked at information that was already public.
When it comes to cyber security customers, how do you explain and contextualize what service you are providing given the vast differences in perception of "security"?
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
i said *near* the south pole
again, a linguistic semantic distinction only
many people answered "north or south pole" and meant "near the north or south pole"
this my whole point, so much of this arguing is over semantics instead of the actual solution...which is a very revealing question, IMHO
in a competition of high-skilled almost-equals, the ability to think past semantic differences and communicate the one best answer clearly is a great way to set apart otherwise good candidates
but you can start a mile north of the south pole (yes I looked it up!) and the solution still works.
exactly...
it's only a *semantic* difference...b/c of how lattitude is measured...
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
it's not asking "north latitude" it just says "north"
it is an assumption based on semantics only and it is very revealing about someone's thought process
it's over-literal analysis of the question...it's a thinking error to say "only North Pole"...**however** let's note that most of the best descriptions of the why the answer works are from the over-literal "north pole only" types...
if you want to be pedantic, because "south of the south pole" would not make sense
it's only a *semantic* difference...b/c of how lattitude is measured...
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
it's not asking "north latitude" it just says "north"
it is an assumption based on semantics only and it is very revealing about someone's thought process
it's over-literal analysis of the question...it's a thinking error to say "only North Pole"...**however** let's note that most of the best descriptions of the why the answer works are from the over-literal "north pole only" types...
In 2015, we're on the cusp of a similar change: the computerized car.
no, we're not
i know alot of very wealthy people have invested alot of money and research into the idea that it is, but it's always been an over-reach to think they would be in general daily use...especially the google car with no steering wheel
self-driving vehicles are more advanced than ever, because *all automation is getting better*
i can definitely envision self-driving semi-trucks in dedicated lanes, or google car-type things at amusement parks and even in a central downtown area like Manhattan
i know it's hard to hear this but a truly autonomous car that interacts with daily traffic with no restrictions is much, much more complex than anyone other than the actual people who do the coding work will admit
talk to someone who actually codes the AI for this stuff...there's a bright future ahead, but the hype machine is in full effect
Open source isn't the issue. The issue is that, as a programmer for hire, the code he produced during his employment period was not under his own copyright. Any working computer programmer knows this, or if not, should.
that is the issue, i'm glad at least a few people are talking about it
it's not as simple as you make it out to be at all, however
if i have a modified version of a standard codebase that i use as a template on many jobs, if someone used then modified that template for a client, by your logic that template itself would be the company's copyright, because it was used
it's the "modified" part that is causing the problem...it's virtually impossible to do not modify code when...um...coding...
there has to be a rational limit...i don't know the specifics of the case, maybe you do...i'm interested to hear what you think the limit of the application of your principle would be in daily work
it's true, no social media system gives you "total control"
but then just sending IP packets over the internet gives your IP service provider "total control" of any of that data, so if that's your standard you can't really use the internet at all
tl:dr - use whatever internet system that has the functions and control of your data that matches your requirements
First, employers are not demanding LinkedIn pages or broadly looking down upon applicants without a facebook...and the idea that they mentioned it in an employment situation, with all the laws in place about fair hiring, *multiple times*...it seems like exaggeration...
However, the question of what kind/how much of your life to share on the internet is definitely a worthy question.
The answer is the understand the function and complexity of the system, the internet in this case. Facebook is one system of many. It has characteristics. One is the default to "sharing".
Instagram is another system...it has less information and simpler controls on "sharing"
**your instagram or twitter can hook into your facebook**
so, a person could use exclusively Instagram, Twitter or even a blog of their own creation, and have it **auto-post** to facebook...thereby having dynamic content on their page without ever going to facebook.com regularly.
the answer is CONTROL
what "social media" internet system should you use?
the one that has the FUNCTIONS you need and gives YOU the CONTROL over your data at a level you are comfortable with
if IBM can make a value proposition in China with PPC, they actually have a chance at getting some market share outside embedded.
yes i agree
from TFA summary: "because the government has been actively pushing homegrown solutions over foreign technology, "
China is serious about this.
They are wise to the level of embedded spyware and also the way companies will lock you into proprietary everything.
Also, it's a wise move from an IT perspective. Especially for something as huge as China, pushing "homegrown solutions" on that economy of scale is a major change and it will have a noticalbly positive effect.
"Like turning an Aircraft Carrier"...that's China's IT infrastructure...it's so huge, it takes a long time to turn, so your criteria for deciding to change course is different...also the consequences of when you do change course are orders of magnitude different
As tech advances we will need more engineers than ever. Outsourcing is not a solution here...it's low quality work that hurts your home market.
Here's the problem: ontology.
The distinctions between "electrical engineering" and "software engineering" are breaking down because so much of engineering work is software.
Look at astronomy. All astronomers are radio astronomers now. That doesn't mean we still don't need 'old-fashioned' regular-light astronomy skills...just that today's astronomer needs different skills than before.
*at best* he's a wannabe hacker at a mid-level job with delusions of gradeure who stole PowerPoint presentations
*probably* he was being blackmailed by non-state actors
everything about Snowden's intrigues are red flags...the presented narrative is ridiculous
you should be praising Ron Wyden...he's the only one in Congress who is trying to really address this issue...that's his job and he's no hero for just doing his job, but any hero worship of Snowden is misplaced
ianap but fluid dynamics is actually really interesting and relevant
everything behaves according to fluid dynamics principles...well...that's reductive but it's true for so many things including planets, light waves and typewriters
was it wind or water?
was it liquid water or water vapor?
see how the distinctions start to change?
this is about the recent "Mars had a huge ocean" news story...it was an easy pick for news editors, it's fun and has a cool graphic of an artists's conception of Mars with a huge ocean...i get it...
this is what i've been digging lately for computer work...it has no words but is not 'ambient' proper...if you want to get technical, this sub-genre is known as 'chillwave':
it comes down to 'case study' data vs interval numberic data
sales is easy to quantify
quality of art however....also, there is a novelty aspect as well, music listeners seeking out novel and "unknown" artists because they like to find new things
I like these kinds of questions, but one thing researchers have difficulty accounting for is the difference between the music people listen to and what the Billboard Top 100 chart says.
Defining "pop music" as whatever is on the Billboard Top 100, especially now, is reductive. I understand it's quantifiable and that's the best idea they had for a quantitative definition of pop. However, Billboard's charts are virtually irrelevant when trying to ascertain what people **actually listen to by choice**
Obviously, record companies try to game the system but in the last 30 years they using NASA level science (or attempting to) to control every aspect of the music in ways no one thought of before.
I'm not trying to be over-critical of the researcher's methods. I'm sure they did the best they could, but these points are important to understand when investigating this kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Krebs, thank you for the time.
My question is about defining "computer security" in relation to public perceptions vs technical facts.
It was reported in 2006 that the NSA was keeping massive databases of American's phone calls and metadata: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news...
Obviously, Snowden's revelations were much more heavily reported, and contained more info, but the public was shocked at information that was already public.
When it comes to cyber security customers, how do you explain and contextualize what service you are providing given the vast differences in perception of "security"?
Yes.
The solution is well paid, professionally trained teachers in well-funded classrooms.
We know this. Now we have another study telling us so in quantifiable terms.
It would help to know who was the previous Chief Design Officer.
It's possible they created a new 'C' position specifically to suit the role Ive plays and part of that includes a more flexible schedule.
It's equally as possible Ive didn't want a C-level position because internal red tape would keep him from being with the engineers and designers.
Really all kinds of explanations, but I want to know. It's really interesting to observe how large companies like Apple make personnel decisions.
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
i said *near* the south pole
again, a linguistic semantic distinction only
many people answered "north or south pole" and meant "near the north or south pole"
this my whole point, so much of this arguing is over semantics instead of the actual solution...which is a very revealing question, IMHO
in a competition of high-skilled almost-equals, the ability to think past semantic differences and communicate the one best answer clearly is a great way to set apart otherwise good candidates
but you can start a mile north of the south pole (yes I looked it up!) and the solution still works.
exactly...
it's only a *semantic* difference...b/c of how lattitude is measured...
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
it's not asking "north latitude" it just says "north"
it is an assumption based on semantics only and it is very revealing about someone's thought process
it's over-literal analysis of the question...it's a thinking error to say "only North Pole"...**however** let's note that most of the best descriptions of the why the answer works are from the over-literal "north pole only" types...
if you want to be pedantic, because "south of the south pole" would not make sense
it's only a *semantic* difference...b/c of how lattitude is measured...
the *most logical* answer is near *both north or south pole* at w/e point the math says to be
it's not asking "north latitude" it just says "north"
it is an assumption based on semantics only and it is very revealing about someone's thought process
it's over-literal analysis of the question...it's a thinking error to say "only North Pole"...**however** let's note that most of the best descriptions of the why the answer works are from the over-literal "north pole only" types...
no, we're not
i know alot of very wealthy people have invested alot of money and research into the idea that it is, but it's always been an over-reach to think they would be in general daily use...especially the google car with no steering wheel
self-driving vehicles are more advanced than ever, because *all automation is getting better*
i can definitely envision self-driving semi-trucks in dedicated lanes, or google car-type things at amusement parks and even in a central downtown area like Manhattan
i know it's hard to hear this but a truly autonomous car that interacts with daily traffic with no restrictions is much, much more complex than anyone other than the actual people who do the coding work will admit
talk to someone who actually codes the AI for this stuff...there's a bright future ahead, but the hype machine is in full effect
just write a program to slightly underbid and slightly overprice from your company's stream of bid and ask prices
yeah, that's what caused the "flash crash"...to many people doing exactly what you suggest
it became a tech war...who can have the fastest shortcut?
on other /. threads some commenters examined the code that Goldman-Sachs used as reported in the lawsuit and it was deemed "spaghetti"
it was all a hacked together mess...**at one of the top places**
Open source isn't the issue. The issue is that, as a programmer for hire, the code he produced during his employment period was not under his own copyright. Any working computer programmer knows this, or if not, should.
that is the issue, i'm glad at least a few people are talking about it
it's not as simple as you make it out to be at all, however
if i have a modified version of a standard codebase that i use as a template on many jobs, if someone used then modified that template for a client, by your logic that template itself would be the company's copyright, because it was used
it's the "modified" part that is causing the problem...it's virtually impossible to do not modify code when...um...coding...
there has to be a rational limit...i don't know the specifics of the case, maybe you do...i'm interested to hear what you think the limit of the application of your principle would be in daily work
it's true, no social media system gives you "total control"
but then just sending IP packets over the internet gives your IP service provider "total control" of any of that data, so if that's your standard you can't really use the internet at all
tl:dr - use whatever internet system that has the functions and control of your data that matches your requirements
First, employers are not demanding LinkedIn pages or broadly looking down upon applicants without a facebook...and the idea that they mentioned it in an employment situation, with all the laws in place about fair hiring, *multiple times*...it seems like exaggeration...
However, the question of what kind/how much of your life to share on the internet is definitely a worthy question.
The answer is the understand the function and complexity of the system, the internet in this case. Facebook is one system of many. It has characteristics. One is the default to "sharing".
Instagram is another system...it has less information and simpler controls on "sharing"
**your instagram or twitter can hook into your facebook**
so, a person could use exclusively Instagram, Twitter or even a blog of their own creation, and have it **auto-post** to facebook...thereby having dynamic content on their page without ever going to facebook.com regularly.
the answer is CONTROL
what "social media" internet system should you use?
the one that has the FUNCTIONS you need and gives YOU the CONTROL over your data at a level you are comfortable with
yes i agree
from TFA summary: "because the government has been actively pushing homegrown solutions over foreign technology, "
China is serious about this.
They are wise to the level of embedded spyware and also the way companies will lock you into proprietary everything.
Also, it's a wise move from an IT perspective. Especially for something as huge as China, pushing "homegrown solutions" on that economy of scale is a major change and it will have a noticalbly positive effect.
"Like turning an Aircraft Carrier"...that's China's IT infrastructure...it's so huge, it takes a long time to turn, so your criteria for deciding to change course is different...also the consequences of when you do change course are orders of magnitude different
Electrical engineering is not in decline.
As tech advances we will need more engineers than ever. Outsourcing is not a solution here...it's low quality work that hurts your home market.
Here's the problem: ontology.
The distinctions between "electrical engineering" and "software engineering" are breaking down because so much of engineering work is software.
Look at astronomy. All astronomers are radio astronomers now. That doesn't mean we still don't need 'old-fashioned' regular-light astronomy skills...just that today's astronomer needs different skills than before.
It's still astronomy.
It's still engineering.
Snowden wasn't a "hero"...
*at best* he's a wannabe hacker at a mid-level job with delusions of gradeure who stole PowerPoint presentations
*probably* he was being blackmailed by non-state actors
everything about Snowden's intrigues are red flags...the presented narrative is ridiculous
you should be praising Ron Wyden...he's the only one in Congress who is trying to really address this issue...that's his job and he's no hero for just doing his job, but any hero worship of Snowden is misplaced
it's wrong *not* to give them the basic services humans need
their rights have been revoked...so they are "wards of the state" and must be treated humanely
here's a modest proposal: why not just kill all criminals?
solves the population, food, water, and global warming almost immediately if all US prisoners were executed right now
we sure as hell can't ever let anyone who has ever committed a crime out of prison...ever...no matter what the crime...that would be just insane
Are we going to use them for NSA contractors, coders for various banks and such?
I'd trust a reformed ex-com before I'd trust the NSA and 'various banks'...one has at least has had accountability and rehabilitation
you're a fool if you think otherwise
the existence of those people does not, in any way, disprove my contention
While the iWatch might do well in China and Asia (especially the gold version),
yes!
why? because people in China, Asia, and the Middle East (think rich Quataris) *absolutely love* our pointless opulent bullshit consumer products
Americans are, arguably, the most discriminating, least hype-driven of the wealthy classes of the world
watches are an old person's deal here in North America.
this is where I disagree
people would **love** a good reason to buy this thing
as it is, it doesn't do shit, needs a damn iPhone5 to work, and steals your privacy
American consumers need more before they fork over the cash
if they learn to design this around user function first (instead of stealing biometric data) then they'll engineer something Americans will love
ianap but fluid dynamics is actually really interesting and relevant
everything behaves according to fluid dynamics principles...well...that's reductive but it's true for so many things including planets, light waves and typewriters
was it wind or water?
was it liquid water or water vapor?
see how the distinctions start to change?
this is about the recent "Mars had a huge ocean" news story...it was an easy pick for news editors, it's fun and has a cool graphic of an artists's conception of Mars with a huge ocean...i get it...
but it's all "fluid"...right?
this is what i've been digging lately for computer work...it has no words but is not 'ambient' proper...if you want to get technical, this sub-genre is known as 'chillwave':
http://comtruise.bandcamp.com/
here is the link with samples (named after colors a bit down the page): http://mtcb.pwop.com/
it's basically music similar to what you'd hear in an elevator or while on hold with tech support
i encourage everyone to listen and tell me what you think...if you like it, buy it...this is one man's (correct) opinion
good points
it comes down to 'case study' data vs interval numberic data
sales is easy to quantify
quality of art however....also, there is a novelty aspect as well, music listeners seeking out novel and "unknown" artists because they like to find new things
"critics picks" can be all over the place
I like these kinds of questions, but one thing researchers have difficulty accounting for is the difference between the music people listen to and what the Billboard Top 100 chart says.
Defining "pop music" as whatever is on the Billboard Top 100, especially now, is reductive. I understand it's quantifiable and that's the best idea they had for a quantitative definition of pop. However, Billboard's charts are virtually irrelevant when trying to ascertain what people **actually listen to by choice**
Obviously, record companies try to game the system but in the last 30 years they using NASA level science (or attempting to) to control every aspect of the music in ways no one thought of before.
Also: digital music production and software has made "pop" music so mass produced and generic you get things like the Nickleback debacle
I'm not trying to be over-critical of the researcher's methods. I'm sure they did the best they could, but these points are important to understand when investigating this kind of thing.
Actual results driven funding would reault in much more human level intelligence, but that is hard and not sexy.
agree