Employees usually want to do the right thing. On the other hand, if it's too difficult or dangerous, they won't. In many cases, the company preaches security, but the guy who bypasses it to get stuff done gets the good annual review and a raise. Most employees will not try to bypass security for things other than getting work done, or possibly getting confidential information on celebrities or people they know.
Exactly what is the surface like, and where is it? Is it something a sufficiently strong being could walk on? Clearly there has to be a rock-atmosphere boundary somewhere, but what's it like?
Counting the atmosphere as part of a planet is a little iffy. You can tell where the rock leaves off, but the boundary of the atmosphere is arbitrary. For most planets, it doesn't really matter. For gas giants, the atmosphere is a significant part of the mass of the planet, and leaving it off would be inappropriate. Moreover, the atmosphere is what we see when looking at gas giants.
We have to count the atmosphere of Jupiter (or I'm way out of date on my planetary science) because there's no actual surface. Counting the atmosphere of the more solid planets seems a bit pointless.
It wasn't a matter of force. It was a matter of getting enough states to ratify the Constitution. Northern states weren't going to ratify if a slave counted full, and southern states weren't going to ratify if a slave didn't count at all. I doubt anyone actually liked the three-fifths compromise, but enough people didn't see it as a deal-breaker for it to go through.
Not quite. It wasn't racial. The natives are mentioned a couple of times in the Constitution, but there are no other references for race. The phrasing was "slaves and other unfree persons". The northern states in general didn't want slaves counted at all, the southern states wanted them counted in full, and three-fifths was a compromise.
That transaction must have taken a while. The US hasn't issued bills greater than $100 since 1969 Five thousand hundred-dollar bills makes half a million. Spending one second counting each bill would have taken over an hour and a half, and that seems fast to me in counting and recounting bills for a large transaction. I'd also expect the people receiving the bills to be unhappy, considering cost of security and actually depositing those bills.
The problem that that act addressed is that complying with pressure from government agencies, in order not to wind up like Qwest, had the potential to cost those companies big. It really isn't fair for the government to force companies to do something illegal and then leave them hanging out to dry when the illegalities are found.
Legislative bodies should have a few oddballs around to try to keep the rest more honest. It isn't necessarily good for the people they represent, but it helps the citizenry in general. I'm far from agreeing with Paul on a wide range of issues, but it's good that he's around.
No, there's plenty of privacy advocates who are a lot more reasonable. A few have staked out an absolute position, but most are willing to see privacy breached with a warrant. What most privacy advocates don't want is deliberate security flaws built into their stuff, available to anyone who can manage to get a few secrets.
If you have a labor vs. time issue you hire more people with the abilities needed to do the job.
Ah, another person who hasn't yet read Brooks' "Mythical Man-Month". There's a chapter examining exactly what happens when you hire more qualified people because you're not going to make the deadline.
There's a difference between something that can be done by some large corporations that don't want to scare away customers, and something that can be done by anyone with a little technology from outside if your window is open.
Using your logic, civilization would collapse. GP listed serious problems with a certain technology that aren't currently fixed (even if they're fixable) and decided not to use it. GP said he didn't need voice control, not that he wouldn't want it if it were actually secure.
I'm going to guess that there's a very small intersection between the set of people who want to grab the customer lists and start their own business, and the set of people who can, or would even think of, bring in a router jiggered for MAC spoofing. If the company can keep IT loyal, they're unlikely to have that particular problem.
The old saying about a station wagon and mag tape has been changed to "Never underestimate the bandwidth of an SUV filled with micro-SD cards barreling down the highway."
Agreed. At some point, you have to figure what security measures are actually justified, and who you're just going to have to trust. The only way to keep data absolutely secure is to destroy it.
Bad assumption. If users find that security measures are hindering their ability to do their job, they'll bypass the security. If only one user is doing that, the user can be fired. If everybody is, the business can't fire everyone.
*Plugs in USB drive
*Malicious USB drive tells computer "I'm a keyboard."
*Computer accepts incoming characters from USB drive as if it were a keyboard
*Computer finds no reason not to accept commands installing malware on local account
*User doesn't notice a thing
*Malware is installed.
Because one is a massive consensus of climate scientists with observations and theories that explain things, and the other is assorted scientists afraid of something that might never exist and which they can't know any specifics of.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true of Iran, it still encourages smaller countries to develop nukes so they don't get invaded.
I was thinking of the 2003 war. Backing out of the Iran agreement has less severe consequences, true.
Employees usually want to do the right thing. On the other hand, if it's too difficult or dangerous, they won't. In many cases, the company preaches security, but the guy who bypasses it to get stuff done gets the good annual review and a raise. Most employees will not try to bypass security for things other than getting work done, or possibly getting confidential information on celebrities or people they know.
Exactly what is the surface like, and where is it? Is it something a sufficiently strong being could walk on? Clearly there has to be a rock-atmosphere boundary somewhere, but what's it like?
Counting the atmosphere as part of a planet is a little iffy. You can tell where the rock leaves off, but the boundary of the atmosphere is arbitrary. For most planets, it doesn't really matter. For gas giants, the atmosphere is a significant part of the mass of the planet, and leaving it off would be inappropriate. Moreover, the atmosphere is what we see when looking at gas giants.
Gee! I didn't know Liberia and Myanmar had landed people on the Moon.
We have to count the atmosphere of Jupiter (or I'm way out of date on my planetary science) because there's no actual surface. Counting the atmosphere of the more solid planets seems a bit pointless.
I'd be happy with saying that there's eight major planets.
In the US, you'd get in trouble for stringing together transactions to stay under $10K. Besides, few people accept gold in payment.
It wasn't a matter of force. It was a matter of getting enough states to ratify the Constitution. Northern states weren't going to ratify if a slave counted full, and southern states weren't going to ratify if a slave didn't count at all. I doubt anyone actually liked the three-fifths compromise, but enough people didn't see it as a deal-breaker for it to go through.
Not quite. It wasn't racial. The natives are mentioned a couple of times in the Constitution, but there are no other references for race. The phrasing was "slaves and other unfree persons". The northern states in general didn't want slaves counted at all, the southern states wanted them counted in full, and three-fifths was a compromise.
That transaction must have taken a while. The US hasn't issued bills greater than $100 since 1969 Five thousand hundred-dollar bills makes half a million. Spending one second counting each bill would have taken over an hour and a half, and that seems fast to me in counting and recounting bills for a large transaction. I'd also expect the people receiving the bills to be unhappy, considering cost of security and actually depositing those bills.
The problem that that act addressed is that complying with pressure from government agencies, in order not to wind up like Qwest, had the potential to cost those companies big. It really isn't fair for the government to force companies to do something illegal and then leave them hanging out to dry when the illegalities are found.
Just out of curiosity, how much were you paid for that, and by whom?
Legislative bodies should have a few oddballs around to try to keep the rest more honest. It isn't necessarily good for the people they represent, but it helps the citizenry in general. I'm far from agreeing with Paul on a wide range of issues, but it's good that he's around.
No, there's plenty of privacy advocates who are a lot more reasonable. A few have staked out an absolute position, but most are willing to see privacy breached with a warrant. What most privacy advocates don't want is deliberate security flaws built into their stuff, available to anyone who can manage to get a few secrets.
Ah, another person who hasn't yet read Brooks' "Mythical Man-Month". There's a chapter examining exactly what happens when you hire more qualified people because you're not going to make the deadline.
Which should mean that there is complicated software out there without security flaws, and I don't believe that.
There's a difference between something that can be done by some large corporations that don't want to scare away customers, and something that can be done by anyone with a little technology from outside if your window is open.
Using your logic, civilization would collapse. GP listed serious problems with a certain technology that aren't currently fixed (even if they're fixable) and decided not to use it. GP said he didn't need voice control, not that he wouldn't want it if it were actually secure.
I'm going to guess that there's a very small intersection between the set of people who want to grab the customer lists and start their own business, and the set of people who can, or would even think of, bring in a router jiggered for MAC spoofing. If the company can keep IT loyal, they're unlikely to have that particular problem.
The old saying about a station wagon and mag tape has been changed to "Never underestimate the bandwidth of an SUV filled with micro-SD cards barreling down the highway."
Agreed. At some point, you have to figure what security measures are actually justified, and who you're just going to have to trust. The only way to keep data absolutely secure is to destroy it.
Bad assumption. If users find that security measures are hindering their ability to do their job, they'll bypass the security. If only one user is doing that, the user can be fired. If everybody is, the business can't fire everyone.
*Plugs in USB drive
*Malicious USB drive tells computer "I'm a keyboard."
*Computer accepts incoming characters from USB drive as if it were a keyboard
*Computer finds no reason not to accept commands installing malware on local account
*User doesn't notice a thing
*Malware is installed.
Because one is a massive consensus of climate scientists with observations and theories that explain things, and the other is assorted scientists afraid of something that might never exist and which they can't know any specifics of.