Airline accounting in the US is like Hollywood accounting. If you don't get yourself a percentage of the gross, not the net, you're screwed. They manipulate the books to appear bankrupt so they can break pilot and stewardes unions and raid their pensions, while nickel-and-diming passengers to death, so the execs can get their multi-million golden parachutes.
Meanwhile, you can actually fly on Singapore Air... which trades the "best airline in the world" title back and forth with Emirates every year or so... for less than a US carrier, and the experience will be vastly better in every way. Coach on Singapore is better than business on the domestic carriers. And business on Singapore makes the first-class cabin on our carriers look like a decrepit hovel on skid row. I've never flown first-class on Singapore, but just look at the pictures. And you don't see stories about *them* going bankrupt every few years. Same with Emirates, and Cathay Pacific, and EVA, and Quantas, and ANA, and so on and so on.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that the people responsible for that mainframe transitioned into the role from conventional rack & stack servers. While that sort of discipline is otherwise admirable; the whole reason that you give IBM the kind of money it takes for them to deliver and support a mainframe is to make that sort of discipline unnecessary. IBM was guaranteeing uptime of 20 *years* back in the S/390 days. And I'm pretty sure it's only gone up from there. Basically, the only time they should be down is if the whole building burns to the ground or is taken away to Oz in a tornado. And, though it was never my job to work on them, I've seen some IBM installations that I could very much believe would survive the rest of the building burning or being blown away.
3. Twitter is such a massive service, with a continually growing user base, with so many tweets posted and so much data ingested; that to stop ISIS using it is an extraordinarily difficult problem that they haven't solved.
Imagine they tried to do it automatically. How do you program that AI? It has to distinguish between actual ISIS posts and accounts and actual people wishing to join ISIS versus: government types investigating ISIS, other terrorist groups claiming to be ISIS, people trolling by pretending to be ISIS, people trolling ISIS by pretending to want to join, people reporting on ISIS, people mocking ISIS, people discussing ISIS or news about ISIS, people into egyptology talking about the goddess Isis, Archer fans talking about the fictional ISIS, actual people named Isis, and so on, all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS.
Block by IP address blocks that they believe are owned by ISIS? Laughable. I shouldn't need to say more.
Do it manually? Right off the bat, you need multilingual staff fluent in at least English and Arabic, plus probably French, Spanish, and Farsi. And not just academically fluent as in "I took classes in school"; but actually fluent and nuanced enough to understand the aforementioned differences and never have false positives. Those people don't come cheap, even if the task is simple and easy. They especially don't come cheap in the Bay Area, where they can probably get a better job doing software localization. But assuming you can find the talent pool of fluent multilingual willing to do the crap job of slogging through twitter looking for ISIS posts and accounts; twitter ingests half a billion tweets per DAY. I can't begin to imagine how many people it would take to screen all that; nor just how awful that job would be.
> It's called "autopilot". An autopilot flies the plane by > itself and can even land the plane automatically.
Wrong.
Only the most advanced autopilot systems are capable of autoland. And then only under certain circumstances, at certain airports, and often only on certain runways at said airport. And to the extent that autoland is used, it requires more than a small bit of manual setup. beforehand. Even an autopilot used during high-altitude cruising requires a lot of setup and pre-programming. And the flight crew still must be ready to assume manual control in an emergency. Lower-end autopilots will maintain a course and altitude, and that's it.
Autopilot is a tool that's useful in reducing your workload. But it's not magic. You are the one trying to redefine the term, not Elon Musk.
> And why doesn't Tesla simply call it, "Cruise Control > Plus" or something catchy like that instead of giving > people the wrong idea?
Because you and the GP poster are making up capabilities out of whole cloth and episodes of Knight Rider, and unjustifiably assigning them to a technology that, in the Tesla, does in fact exceed the capabilities of many aviation autopilots. It's a tool to reduce your workload. And it's useful. But there's not a Boeing or Airbus in the world on which you can step into the cockpit, tell it where you want to go, and sit back and do nothing else besides engage in witty banter with the disembodied voice of William Daniels.
Name one autopilot & vehicle that totally the vehicle's operator of all responsibility and need to be attentive.
You won't be able to, because none exist. An autopilot is a (useful) tool to reduce your workload. But it's not Knight Rider. You can't just get in, say "KITT, take me to KSMO", and sit back and go to sleep / read a book / get drunk. Autopilots have never worked that way. And no one, not even Tesla, has advertised them as such.
That scam is one among many reasons I've long since quit using the legacy taxi companies and switched to Uber and Lyft. They made their own bed with stunts like that, and they can go lay in it.
Well, there are two possibilities in a situation like this. Either IT is incompetent and utterly incapable of properly designing and building reliability and redundancy into their systems. Or some obstructionist elsewhere in the corporate org chart... and these people often do hold MBA degrees... has maladministered to deny IT the resources necessary to do the job correctly, and they were forced to make compromises that reduced said reliability and redundancy.
While the first is certainly not unknown; in my own experience, the latter is more common.
If the F-35 had been developed just as an F-16 replacement, it would have been a much better-managed program and would probably meet, or even already have met, the goal respectably. The problem is that a jack-of-all-trades is inevitably a master of none, and the F-35 grew into a massive boondoggle. In addition to the F-16, it also has to replace:
- Most of the F-15s, because the air force stopped building the F-22 too soon. - The F-22s that were supposed to be built, but weren't. - The F-14; the Super Hornet having been inadequate to the task. - The A-6; the Super Hornet, again, not having matched the AtG capability of the Intruder. - The A-10. - The F/A-18 Hornet, both the navy's supers, and the marines' standard model. - The AV-8 Harrier. - Various specialized variants of the above such as as the Strike Eagle and EW versions of the A-6 and F/A-18. - Australia's F-111 Aardvarks. - Probably a few more that I've not remembered off the top of my head.
While it may be a cromulent replacement for the F-16, the non-super hornet, and the Harrier; it lacks the range of the F-15, 14, 22, 111, 18-super, and A-6; the supercruise ability of the 22; the long-range intercept capability of the 14 plus AIM-54; the air-to-ground loadout of the 15E, 111, 18-super, A-6, and A-10; and the survivability, loiter time, forward deployment, and giant gatling cannon of the A-10. Basically, the only thing it has going for it as anything more than a 16, non-super 18, and Harrier replacement is stealth. If anyone figures out how to break that, it's boned. And that's all, of course, assuming that everything works perfectly as promised with no bugs or gremlins at all; which has already proven not to be the case.
According to Wikipedia, the Queen Mary 2, at more than twice the tonnage and only two knots slower, took $900 million (£460 million, actually.) to build NEW. Toss in the original construction price after adjusting for inflation, and to get a total price tag of $1.4 billion and change. How is this in any way worth it?
How exactly is the knowledge of the existence of any of these domains a problem? Just about any given domain can be assumed to have a mail.whatever.com subdomain. Internal testing domains are internal and, if they're ever publicly routable at all, are only opened up for the duration of the test and then closed down again. And just the knowledge of a VPN address should never be enough. At the very least you also need a valid username/password. You probably need a 2-factor token. And you possibly need a client certificate of your own to access it.
The 49ers have left San Francisco and are therefore dead to me. Baseball is boring as hell on television, but tickets at AT&T Park are very reasonably priced and it's easy to go with a group to see the Giants in person. The Warriors are still Oakland's team, not mine; granted though that is scheduled to change soon. Tennis is boring on television. Golf is not just boring on television, but boring in every sense of the word. No soccer team, no hockey team...
So yeah... Live sports on television are pretty much irrelevant.
A lot of this sort of BS would not hold up in court, if it were actually tested. Specifically, a friend of mine who practices law told me once, in no uncertain terms, that if someone actually took the NFL to court over their whole "Thou shall not utter the word 'Superbowl' unless you are one of our sponsoring partners we sold the rights to this year." thing would get handily shot down if ever taken to trial. The issue is that very few entities can afford the legal bills to take on the NFL and bring a case through to conclusion. Many of the entities that could are partnered with the NFL anyway, or will be in future years if not this year. And if anyone did go ahead and do so, and couldn't be handily outspent and crushed, the NFL would settle the case to prevent a president from being established.
I'd imagine the same is true of the IOC and their BS mandates.
The factors that affect that talent pool are further up in the pipeline than the point where Apple, Google, or the like draw, upon it or have control. Even as a freshman, my computer science classes were probably about 80% male and mostly white and asian. And those were the 100-level classes that people in other majors took as electives. At the 300 and 400 level, where it was all CS and engineering majors, it was probably 90-95% male, and all white and asian with about a 50/50 split. That's the talent pool that tech companies have to draw upon. And even so... Apple's male/female ratio is better than my college's CS program's, and 56% white is pretty close to matching the Bay Area's demographics, where whites make up 52.5% of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Where chances need to be made is at the high school level, perhaps even at the middle school level. Want more women or minorities in tech? High schools need to encourage girls to major in the STEM disciplines in college. Scrap the home-ec, auto shop, and FFA crap, and track more girls and minority students the math and science classes that will prepare them for the necessary majors. This is something that outside the remit and control of the tech companies. And until and unless changes are made at this level, articles such as these are nothing more than scapegoating.
Come up with one *really* good password/passphrase, and use it on your 1Password vault. Then give everything else passwords make up of long random strings and rotate them at whatever interval the BOFH or compliance pinhead demands. Though I'm sure there are *some* workplaces where this would be verboten, I've never worked in one. Of course, even that scheme can make my blood boil. my usual setting of 32 characters of 25% each of random capitals, lowercase, digits, and symbols often reveals things like:
1) Restrictions on what characters are allowed in a password. Translation: "Oh, hai, we've not bothered to sanitize our inputs against XSS and SQL injection attacks. We're a bunch of morons and you shouldn't use our service."
2) Arbitrary limits to password length. Translation: "Oh hai, we've not bothered to use hashes, but rather are storing the password itself in a fixed-length field in our database. We're a bunch of morons and you shouldn't use our service."
It's not too bad when it's J. Random Web Site that you don't really need to use. But when it's your employer's benefits or 401k provider... *sigh*
Remember, the republicans chose as their presidential nominee a man who claims that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by China to weaken our economy. These people have their heads so far up the rectums of the fossil fuel industry that they blather on about a "war on coal" and jumped Hillary's case when she talked about shutting down coal plants... not even for renewables, but for other fossil fuels (natural gas) that burn cleaner. They're so damned convinced that there are no repercussions to burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon into the atmosphere, so totally self-assured that there is no such thing as climate change, that even replacing the worst and dirtiest fossil fuel of them all with another fossil fuel is a matter of psychotic controversy for them. (Hell. If there's NOT a "war on coal", then there damn well should be!)
And when one of their own had the temerity to point out that even if you're 100% confident in your belief that the global climate has absolutely not changed, is not changing, and never will change, fossil fuels will still eventually run out, and that stubbornly clinging to them is like being "last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads" or "the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged"... when Arnold Schwarzenegger broke it down into pure, cold-blooded, capitalism snd pointed out that there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of jobs to be had in renewables and they've been great for California's economy (Now having nudged out France to become the 6th largest in the world... they branded him a traitor and have all but totally disavowed him.
The climate change deniers and fossil fuel fanboys are not rational actors, and they're not acting in good faith. Sadly, I think the only real thing to do is to wait for them to be demographiced out. And we'll just have to hope that, once their successors have taken power and cast them aside, it's not too late to repair the damage going forward from there.
Well, there can't really be any much doubt that Thiel was planning his revenge for a long time and just waiting for the right opportunity to do so. The guy's company makes software to help the three-letter-agencies spy on us. And he named it Palantir... as in the talisman that the dark lord Sauron used to corrupt Denethor and Saruman, driving the first to madness and suicide, and turning the latter into a minion of pure evil devoted to the destruction of mankind. Like I said: a creep and a tool; or at the very least someone with some seriously Blofeldian aspirations.
But every time I think of Gawker, all of its works, all of its people, all of its history, all of its existence, being utterly consumed and destroyed; I must confess I giggle a little on the inside. It's just a shame they're based in New York and it'd be impractical to raze their building and plow the land through with salt.
If they are still a "considerable risk to others" they should not be let out of prison in the first place. We shouldn't be using prison for something so base and depraved as revenge. It should be about public safety, first and foremost, followed by rehabilitation. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be performed on intake, and an equally comprehensive evaluation, specifically as the the likelihood of recidivism, prior to release. If the offender can't be certified to have little to no recidivism risk... if he/she still presents a danger to the general public... he should not be released. If, on the other hand, the prisoner is rehabilitated and does NOT pose that risk, scrap the lists and the shaming and let him go rebuild his life in peace.
Peter Thiel is a creep and a tool, sure. But versus Gawker I'm solidly in his corner. Hell... I'd give a hearty three cheers and two thumbs up to Bernard Madoff, Dick Cheney, or even Bill Gates, if any of them were the one destroying gawker.
Oh, knock off that BS and read the actual ordinance and understand the circumstances under which it was passed.
1) Uber and Lyft did not move into Austin, demand to be exempt from existing law, and leave in a snit when they were told no. They were already operating in Austin for quite some time when this brand NEW law was imposed for the specific purpose of running them out of town.
2) There was a lot more in there than just the background check people were making a big deal about. They were restricted in providing service to "special events", required to conduct and report on vaguely defined "community outreach" events outside the scope of a for-profit business, and surrender access to their data to the city. There was also a cash grab.
3) The ordinance was specifically crafted NOT to apply equally to the legacy taxi corporations. It applied only to "Transportation Network Companies,", ie. Lyft and Uber only.
It was political corruption and regulatory capture at its worst. Uber and Lyft were not being "spoiled brats" in exiting the market. When their attempt to fight the legislation failed, exiting the market was the only rational choice. The bought-and-paid-for city council had picked the winner in that marketplace and even if the ridesharing companies had complied, all that would mean is that even more onerous legislation would be in the pipeline until they departed anyway.
Putin very much wants to be an enemy though. He is on record as pining for the "good old days" of the cold war, KGB and Soviet Union; having said publicly that he considers their dissolution "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". And he's been taking increasingly aggressive steps towards bringing all three back over the last several years.
Because the vast majority of the "scandals" are hyperbolically exaggerated BS or made up from whole cloth by the republicans. The one case where she could legitimately argued to have done something wrong was a bog-standard case of "shadow IT". And most of us have been in situations ourselves where... if we could have gotten around the obstructive BOFH going on about "my precious" network that they don't want tainted by the frivolity of those "dirty hobbitses" and gotten our email and notifications on our iPhones instead of those decrepit old blackberries and pagers... we most definitely would have, or did.
Even Bernie Sandars is on record as considering it a non-issue, saying in the debates that he's "sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails.": http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
> And for those above who say that Chip and > Signature is the worst of both worlds - you're entirely > wrong! I can easily clone your mag stripe card and > use it to my heart's content.
Yes, and if you were to so do, I'd be liable by law for no more than $50. All but one of my cards wife that, and I don't even carry that one. It's locked up in a safe at home. (It's my oldest line of credit and I've never gotten a straight answer as to whether or how much the change to my average age of credit would negatively impact my scores. So I keep it active, taking it out and using it a few times per year.)
> I know of no current attacks against EMV that allow > you to clone a chip and use it for online transactions.
But since we stupidly implemented the chip, but not the PIN, if I were to lose my wallet or get mugged, there's absolutely no additional protections whatsoever preventing whoever gets ahold of my card from charging to their heart's content. Even those stupid-ass gas station terminals that make you enter your ZIP code would be useless. Because if someone has my wallet and credit cards, they also have my driver's license, which has my ZIP code on it.
So, at the end of the day, there is exactly ZERO benefit to the chip cards. And regardless of why exactly the transaction is slower, the fact is that they ARE significantly slower to use. Target seems to be the worst offender, taking 45 seconds to a minute were it used to be: swipe, put card back in wallet, sign, and move on. It's a major pain in the ass, a waste of time, and it forces me to have my wallet out of my pocket and my card out of my wallet for much longer than previously which, it can be argued makes it less secure because it introduces more opportunity for someone to fumble and drop either, or for a particularly brazen thief to grab it.
At the end of the day, hyperbolic headlines aside, the chip cards are a solid lose/lose.
And it's doubly stupid because there's already something better: ApplePay and Android Pay. Even if someone gets ahold of my iPhone, unless they also cut off my hand or develop telepathy to rip my watch's passcode from my mind (In which case I have much bigger problems than credit card fraud.), they can't charge a damn thing. The device tokens cannot be used to reconstitute the device data and add security for online purchases, which is impossible for EMV cards. And it's FAST. Double-pressing the button on my watch and hiding my wrist to the reader is faster even than using a normal swipe & sign create card. The card industry should have just mandated acceptance of ApplePay and Android Pay, and skipped the 20-year-old broken down technologic relic from the 1990s that is EMV.
The true believers have been predicting "a mass migration to Linux" on the desktop after every round of Microsoft shenanigans for the last 20 years, and it hasn't happened yet. I'd like to see Microsoft dead and buried as much as anyone. But I really don't see yet another round of abusive BS kicking off the exodus. If anything is going to kill Microsoft, it's going to be the same thing that killed Palm and Blackberry: A combination of their own hubris and complacency causing them to overlook an agile new company that will totally blindside them with something "knock-your-socks-off" good. Linux is good. But it's more "reliable-work-truck" good. And if it hasn't caught the general public's awe yet, I doubt that it will. Buy hey, it's the king of the server room and data center, and that's a good thing to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Airline accounting in the US is like Hollywood accounting. If you don't get yourself a percentage of the gross, not the net, you're screwed. They manipulate the books to appear bankrupt so they can break pilot and stewardes unions and raid their pensions, while nickel-and-diming passengers to death, so the execs can get their multi-million golden parachutes.
Meanwhile, you can actually fly on Singapore Air... which trades the "best airline in the world" title back and forth with Emirates every year or so... for less than a US carrier, and the experience will be vastly better in every way. Coach on Singapore is better than business on the domestic carriers. And business on Singapore makes the first-class cabin on our carriers look like a decrepit hovel on skid row. I've never flown first-class on Singapore, but just look at the pictures. And you don't see stories about *them* going bankrupt every few years. Same with Emirates, and Cathay Pacific, and EVA, and Quantas, and ANA, and so on and so on.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that the people responsible for that mainframe transitioned into the role from conventional rack & stack servers. While that sort of discipline is otherwise admirable; the whole reason that you give IBM the kind of money it takes for them to deliver and support a mainframe is to make that sort of discipline unnecessary. IBM was guaranteeing uptime of 20 *years* back in the S/390 days. And I'm pretty sure it's only gone up from there. Basically, the only time they should be down is if the whole building burns to the ground or is taken away to Oz in a tornado. And, though it was never my job to work on them, I've seen some IBM installations that I could very much believe would survive the rest of the building burning or being blown away.
Or:
3. Twitter is such a massive service, with a continually growing user base, with so many tweets posted and so much data ingested; that to stop ISIS using it is an extraordinarily difficult problem that they haven't solved.
Imagine they tried to do it automatically. How do you program that AI? It has to distinguish between actual ISIS posts and accounts and actual people wishing to join ISIS versus: government types investigating ISIS, other terrorist groups claiming to be ISIS, people trolling by pretending to be ISIS, people trolling ISIS by pretending to want to join, people reporting on ISIS, people mocking ISIS, people discussing ISIS or news about ISIS, people into egyptology talking about the goddess Isis, Archer fans talking about the fictional ISIS, actual people named Isis, and so on, all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS.
Block by IP address blocks that they believe are owned by ISIS? Laughable. I shouldn't need to say more.
Do it manually? Right off the bat, you need multilingual staff fluent in at least English and Arabic, plus probably French, Spanish, and Farsi. And not just academically fluent as in "I took classes in school"; but actually fluent and nuanced enough to understand the aforementioned differences and never have false positives. Those people don't come cheap, even if the task is simple and easy. They especially don't come cheap in the Bay Area, where they can probably get a better job doing software localization. But assuming you can find the talent pool of fluent multilingual willing to do the crap job of slogging through twitter looking for ISIS posts and accounts; twitter ingests half a billion tweets per DAY. I can't begin to imagine how many people it would take to screen all that; nor just how awful that job would be.
> It's called "autopilot". An autopilot flies the plane by
> itself and can even land the plane automatically.
Wrong.
Only the most advanced autopilot systems are capable of autoland. And then only under certain circumstances, at certain airports, and often only on certain runways at said airport. And to the extent that autoland is used, it requires more than a small bit of manual setup. beforehand. Even an autopilot used during high-altitude cruising requires a lot of setup and pre-programming. And the flight crew still must be ready to assume manual control in an emergency. Lower-end autopilots will maintain a course and altitude, and that's it.
Autopilot is a tool that's useful in reducing your workload. But it's not magic. You are the one trying to redefine the term, not Elon Musk.
> And why doesn't Tesla simply call it, "Cruise Control
> Plus" or something catchy like that instead of giving
> people the wrong idea?
Because you and the GP poster are making up capabilities out of whole cloth and episodes of Knight Rider, and unjustifiably assigning them to a technology that, in the Tesla, does in fact exceed the capabilities of many aviation autopilots. It's a tool to reduce your workload. And it's useful. But there's not a Boeing or Airbus in the world on which you can step into the cockpit, tell it where you want to go, and sit back and do nothing else besides engage in witty banter with the disembodied voice of William Daniels.
Name one autopilot & vehicle that totally the vehicle's operator of all responsibility and need to be attentive.
You won't be able to, because none exist. An autopilot is a (useful) tool to reduce your workload. But it's not Knight Rider. You can't just get in, say "KITT, take me to KSMO", and sit back and go to sleep / read a book / get drunk. Autopilots have never worked that way. And no one, not even Tesla, has advertised them as such.
Most of the locations are actually user-generated. Niantic imported their POI database from Ingress to populate the map in Pokemon Go.
> his credit card machine didn't work
That scam is one among many reasons I've long since quit using the legacy taxi companies and switched to Uber and Lyft. They made their own bed with stunts like that, and they can go lay in it.
Well, there are two possibilities in a situation like this. Either IT is incompetent and utterly incapable of properly designing and building reliability and redundancy into their systems. Or some obstructionist elsewhere in the corporate org chart... and these people often do hold MBA degrees... has maladministered to deny IT the resources necessary to do the job correctly, and they were forced to make compromises that reduced said reliability and redundancy.
While the first is certainly not unknown; in my own experience, the latter is more common.
If the F-35 had been developed just as an F-16 replacement, it would have been a much better-managed program and would probably meet, or even already have met, the goal respectably. The problem is that a jack-of-all-trades is inevitably a master of none, and the F-35 grew into a massive boondoggle. In addition to the F-16, it also has to replace:
- Most of the F-15s, because the air force stopped building the F-22 too soon.
- The F-22s that were supposed to be built, but weren't.
- The F-14; the Super Hornet having been inadequate to the task.
- The A-6; the Super Hornet, again, not having matched the AtG capability of the Intruder.
- The A-10.
- The F/A-18 Hornet, both the navy's supers, and the marines' standard model.
- The AV-8 Harrier.
- Various specialized variants of the above such as as the Strike Eagle and EW versions of the A-6 and F/A-18.
- Australia's F-111 Aardvarks.
- Probably a few more that I've not remembered off the top of my head.
While it may be a cromulent replacement for the F-16, the non-super hornet, and the Harrier; it lacks the range of the F-15, 14, 22, 111, 18-super, and A-6; the supercruise ability of the 22; the long-range intercept capability of the 14 plus AIM-54; the air-to-ground loadout of the 15E, 111, 18-super, A-6, and A-10; and the survivability, loiter time, forward deployment, and giant gatling cannon of the A-10. Basically, the only thing it has going for it as anything more than a 16, non-super 18, and Harrier replacement is stealth. If anyone figures out how to break that, it's boned. And that's all, of course, assuming that everything works perfectly as promised with no bugs or gremlins at all; which has already proven not to be the case.
According to Wikipedia, the Queen Mary 2, at more than twice the tonnage and only two knots slower, took $900 million (£460 million, actually.) to build NEW. Toss in the original construction price after adjusting for inflation, and to get a total price tag of $1.4 billion and change. How is this in any way worth it?
... in my pre-coffee state. But:
> vpn.miltonsandfordwines.com
> upstest2.managehr.com
> mail.backup-technology.co.uk
How exactly is the knowledge of the existence of any of these domains a problem? Just about any given domain can be assumed to have a mail.whatever.com subdomain. Internal testing domains are internal and, if they're ever publicly routable at all, are only opened up for the duration of the test and then closed down again. And just the knowledge of a VPN address should never be enough. At the very least you also need a valid username/password. You probably need a 2-factor token. And you possibly need a client certificate of your own to access it.
I'm failing to see any "dark side" here.
Well...
The 49ers have left San Francisco and are therefore dead to me. Baseball is boring as hell on television, but tickets at AT&T Park are very reasonably priced and it's easy to go with a group to see the Giants in person. The Warriors are still Oakland's team, not mine; granted though that is scheduled to change soon. Tennis is boring on television. Golf is not just boring on television, but boring in every sense of the word. No soccer team, no hockey team...
So yeah... Live sports on television are pretty much irrelevant.
A lot of this sort of BS would not hold up in court, if it were actually tested. Specifically, a friend of mine who practices law told me once, in no uncertain terms, that if someone actually took the NFL to court over their whole "Thou shall not utter the word 'Superbowl' unless you are one of our sponsoring partners we sold the rights to this year." thing would get handily shot down if ever taken to trial. The issue is that very few entities can afford the legal bills to take on the NFL and bring a case through to conclusion. Many of the entities that could are partnered with the NFL anyway, or will be in future years if not this year. And if anyone did go ahead and do so, and couldn't be handily outspent and crushed, the NFL would settle the case to prevent a president from being established.
I'd imagine the same is true of the IOC and their BS mandates.
The factors that affect that talent pool are further up in the pipeline than the point where Apple, Google, or the like draw, upon it or have control. Even as a freshman, my computer science classes were probably about 80% male and mostly white and asian. And those were the 100-level classes that people in other majors took as electives. At the 300 and 400 level, where it was all CS and engineering majors, it was probably 90-95% male, and all white and asian with about a 50/50 split. That's the talent pool that tech companies have to draw upon. And even so... Apple's male/female ratio is better than my college's CS program's, and 56% white is pretty close to matching the Bay Area's demographics, where whites make up 52.5% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Where chances need to be made is at the high school level, perhaps even at the middle school level. Want more women or minorities in tech? High schools need to encourage girls to major in the STEM disciplines in college. Scrap the home-ec, auto shop, and FFA crap, and track more girls and minority students the math and science classes that will prepare them for the necessary majors. This is something that outside the remit and control of the tech companies. And until and unless changes are made at this level, articles such as these are nothing more than scapegoating.
Or,
Come up with one *really* good password/passphrase, and use it on your 1Password vault. Then give everything else passwords make up of long random strings and rotate them at whatever interval the BOFH or compliance pinhead demands. Though I'm sure there are *some* workplaces where this would be verboten, I've never worked in one. Of course, even that scheme can make my blood boil. my usual setting of 32 characters of 25% each of random capitals, lowercase, digits, and symbols often reveals things like:
1) Restrictions on what characters are allowed in a password. Translation: "Oh, hai, we've not bothered to sanitize our inputs against XSS and SQL injection attacks. We're a bunch of morons and you shouldn't use our service."
2) Arbitrary limits to password length. Translation: "Oh hai, we've not bothered to use hashes, but rather are storing the password itself in a fixed-length field in our database. We're a bunch of morons and you shouldn't use our service."
It's not too bad when it's J. Random Web Site that you don't really need to use. But when it's your employer's benefits or 401k provider... *sigh*
Remember, the republicans chose as their presidential nominee a man who claims that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by China to weaken our economy. These people have their heads so far up the rectums of the fossil fuel industry that they blather on about a "war on coal" and jumped Hillary's case when she talked about shutting down coal plants... not even for renewables, but for other fossil fuels (natural gas) that burn cleaner. They're so damned convinced that there are no repercussions to burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon into the atmosphere, so totally self-assured that there is no such thing as climate change, that even replacing the worst and dirtiest fossil fuel of them all with another fossil fuel is a matter of psychotic controversy for them. (Hell. If there's NOT a "war on coal", then there damn well should be!)
And when one of their own had the temerity to point out that even if you're 100% confident in your belief that the global climate has absolutely not changed, is not changing, and never will change, fossil fuels will still eventually run out, and that stubbornly clinging to them is like being "last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads" or "the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged"... when Arnold Schwarzenegger broke it down into pure, cold-blooded, capitalism snd pointed out that there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of jobs to be had in renewables and they've been great for California's economy (Now having nudged out France to become the 6th largest in the world... they branded him a traitor and have all but totally disavowed him.
The climate change deniers and fossil fuel fanboys are not rational actors, and they're not acting in good faith. Sadly, I think the only real thing to do is to wait for them to be demographiced out. And we'll just have to hope that, once their successors have taken power and cast them aside, it's not too late to repair the damage going forward from there.
Well, there can't really be any much doubt that Thiel was planning his revenge for a long time and just waiting for the right opportunity to do so. The guy's company makes software to help the three-letter-agencies spy on us. And he named it Palantir... as in the talisman that the dark lord Sauron used to corrupt Denethor and Saruman, driving the first to madness and suicide, and turning the latter into a minion of pure evil devoted to the destruction of mankind. Like I said: a creep and a tool; or at the very least someone with some seriously Blofeldian aspirations.
But every time I think of Gawker, all of its works, all of its people, all of its history, all of its existence, being utterly consumed and destroyed; I must confess I giggle a little on the inside. It's just a shame they're based in New York and it'd be impractical to raze their building and plow the land through with salt.
You're right. It's not that hard.
If they are still a "considerable risk to others" they should not be let out of prison in the first place. We shouldn't be using prison for something so base and depraved as revenge. It should be about public safety, first and foremost, followed by rehabilitation. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be performed on intake, and an equally comprehensive evaluation, specifically as the the likelihood of recidivism, prior to release. If the offender can't be certified to have little to no recidivism risk... if he/she still presents a danger to the general public... he should not be released. If, on the other hand, the prisoner is rehabilitated and does NOT pose that risk, scrap the lists and the shaming and let him go rebuild his life in peace.
Peter Thiel is a creep and a tool, sure. But versus Gawker I'm solidly in his corner. Hell... I'd give a hearty three cheers and two thumbs up to Bernard Madoff, Dick Cheney, or even Bill Gates, if any of them were the one destroying gawker.
Oh, knock off that BS and read the actual ordinance and understand the circumstances under which it was passed.
1) Uber and Lyft did not move into Austin, demand to be exempt from existing law, and leave in a snit when they were told no. They were already operating in Austin for quite some time when this brand NEW law was imposed for the specific purpose of running them out of town.
2) There was a lot more in there than just the background check people were making a big deal about. They were restricted in providing service to "special events", required to conduct and report on vaguely defined "community outreach" events outside the scope of a for-profit business, and surrender access to their data to the city. There was also a cash grab.
3) The ordinance was specifically crafted NOT to apply equally to the legacy taxi corporations. It applied only to "Transportation Network Companies,", ie. Lyft and Uber only.
It was political corruption and regulatory capture at its worst. Uber and Lyft were not being "spoiled brats" in exiting the market. When their attempt to fight the legislation failed, exiting the market was the only rational choice. The bought-and-paid-for city council had picked the winner in that marketplace and even if the ridesharing companies had complied, all that would mean is that even more onerous legislation would be in the pipeline until they departed anyway.
Putin very much wants to be an enemy though. He is on record as pining for the "good old days" of the cold war, KGB and Soviet Union; having said publicly that he considers their dissolution "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". And he's been taking increasingly aggressive steps towards bringing all three back over the last several years.
Because the vast majority of the "scandals" are hyperbolically exaggerated BS or made up from whole cloth by the republicans. The one case where she could legitimately argued to have done something wrong was a bog-standard case of "shadow IT". And most of us have been in situations ourselves where... if we could have gotten around the obstructive BOFH going on about "my precious" network that they don't want tainted by the frivolity of those "dirty hobbitses" and gotten our email and notifications on our iPhones instead of those decrepit old blackberries and pagers... we most definitely would have, or did.
Even Bernie Sandars is on record as considering it a non-issue, saying in the debates that he's "sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails.":
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
> And for those above who say that Chip and
> Signature is the worst of both worlds - you're entirely
> wrong! I can easily clone your mag stripe card and
> use it to my heart's content.
Yes, and if you were to so do, I'd be liable by law for no more than $50. All but one of my cards wife that, and I don't even carry that one. It's locked up in a safe at home. (It's my oldest line of credit and I've never gotten a straight answer as to whether or how much the change to my average age of credit would negatively impact my scores. So I keep it active, taking it out and using it a few times per year.)
> I know of no current attacks against EMV that allow
> you to clone a chip and use it for online transactions.
But since we stupidly implemented the chip, but not the PIN, if I were to lose my wallet or get mugged, there's absolutely no additional protections whatsoever preventing whoever gets ahold of my card from charging to their heart's content. Even those stupid-ass gas station terminals that make you enter your ZIP code would be useless. Because if someone has my wallet and credit cards, they also have my driver's license, which has my ZIP code on it.
So, at the end of the day, there is exactly ZERO benefit to the chip cards. And regardless of why exactly the transaction is slower, the fact is that they ARE significantly slower to use. Target seems to be the worst offender, taking 45 seconds to a minute were it used to be: swipe, put card back in wallet, sign, and move on. It's a major pain in the ass, a waste of time, and it forces me to have my wallet out of my pocket and my card out of my wallet for much longer than previously which, it can be argued makes it less secure because it introduces more opportunity for someone to fumble and drop either, or for a particularly brazen thief to grab it.
At the end of the day, hyperbolic headlines aside, the chip cards are a solid lose/lose.
And it's doubly stupid because there's already something better: ApplePay and Android Pay. Even if someone gets ahold of my iPhone, unless they also cut off my hand or develop telepathy to rip my watch's passcode from my mind (In which case I have much bigger problems than credit card fraud.), they can't charge a damn thing. The device tokens cannot be used to reconstitute the device data and add security for online purchases, which is impossible for EMV cards. And it's FAST. Double-pressing the button on my watch and hiding my wrist to the reader is faster even than using a normal swipe & sign create card. The card industry should have just mandated acceptance of ApplePay and Android Pay, and skipped the 20-year-old broken down technologic relic from the 1990s that is EMV.
The true believers have been predicting "a mass migration to Linux" on the desktop after every round of Microsoft shenanigans for the last 20 years, and it hasn't happened yet. I'd like to see Microsoft dead and buried as much as anyone. But I really don't see yet another round of abusive BS kicking off the exodus. If anything is going to kill Microsoft, it's going to be the same thing that killed Palm and Blackberry: A combination of their own hubris and complacency causing them to overlook an agile new company that will totally blindside them with something "knock-your-socks-off" good. Linux is good. But it's more "reliable-work-truck" good. And if it hasn't caught the general public's awe yet, I doubt that it will. Buy hey, it's the king of the server room and data center, and that's a good thing to be.