Yeah, so this is why you put in place policies to restrict the amount of damage that can be done by ignorance, or a bad actor.
Step 1: Nobody should be logging in interactively as an administrative user. UNIX / Linux / OS X has sudo, Windows has 'run as administrator...' Step 2: Everything should be running a firewall that has everything closed by default, and only things that need to receive traffic whitelisted. This firewall and it's rules should be actively monitored and maintained by some kind of automated configuration management. Step 3: Any organization that is at all serious about network security should have an authenticated proxy server for outbound traffic, and that proxy should be the only thing allowed to talk to the Internet without a security review. Use this proxy to block known bad actors on the Internet.
That would drastically reduce the amount of exposure to attack, and it's unlikely that this county office has done any of them, much less all of them.
Yeah, but those weren't actually declared wars. They were 'police actions' or 'armed conflicts' or some other trite bullshit.
Calling something what it actually is brings forth a whole new section of laws and regulations that nobody involved wants to deal with. So they skip it.
A lot of that unused airport has been taken up by DHL - CVG is one of their three global hubs. They employ 2500 people there, and just spent $100M to expand the facilities.
Yes, Delta has been decreasing service through CVG ever since their merger with Northwest Airlines which got them a shitload of gates in Detroit and Minneapolis. They also have given up their lease on the disused terminal at CVG that was only being used for storing snow removal equipment and training TSA search dogs, which will be torn down this year.
That being said, they just yesterday announced that they will be increasing flights out of CVG.
Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky Airport is becoming much more of a cargo hub than an airport for passenger travel. Ever since Delta screwed the airport over by getting lots of construction concessions while using it as a hub, and then basically leaving town except for mostly small regional traffic to other hubs, there is a massive airport with four runways sitting there mostly empty. DHL took up a lot of the empty space in the pattern by building shitloads of warehouses nearby. Looks like Amazon is looking to do the same with their distribution center in Hebron, KY.
Probably a smart move. Lots of available infrastructure sitting there ready to be used (three 10,000 foot runways), in a state that really wants the jobs.
It was ambiguous, but "this" in the GP post probably referred to Slashdot denizens. Which is an extremely niche group of people who are not typical consumers.
How is that any different from any other software publisher on any other platform, ever?
Example: Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, which cuts off minimum support for otherwise perfectly working hardware. App developer X targets new version of Windows because it has a new spiffy API that allows them to cut out huge chunks of ass-pain code, causing their minimum OS requirement to be the new version of windows. Customer Y who has a PC that won't run the new version of Windows is stuck with old version of app X, which couldhave any of the issues above.
The world moves on, and backwards compatibility must be cut off at some point in order to do it.
If you have a 32-bit processor, why would you be able to update to a 64-bit only OS? Why would Apple release an OS for a 32-bit device that can't run 32-bit apps?
No, it isn't. Have you heard of a "fat binary" that can contain both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the app? Does that concept not exist in "your world", as you put it?
it's only been a thing for like 10+ years now in the rest of "our world." Such a package would "support 64-bit" while not dropping 32-bit.
You are absolutely correct. Lots of people forget the days when Apple would announce some great product that was made out of unobtainable bits, resulting in massive delays and ridicule. "Hey look, we have this great new computer which trounces the competition in performance, but you won't be able to actually touch it for six months, by which time the competition will have caught up at lower prices!"
Tim Cook fixed that by straightening out the supply chain. He also helped with getting profitable by managing inventory at ridiculously tight margins in comparison to everyone else, because usually people don't want to buy stale computers after you announce new models.
None of these things were stuff that the great designers and technologists were any good at. It took a logistics guy to fix it, and that's what Cook is.
Thanks to Apple, and their non-refreshes of Mac products and simple storage bumps in devices that are otherwise identical, that has to actually be declared these days.
Since when does every single customer a health insurance company have cost more than they pay in premiums? Even before the Affordable Care Act, that wasn't even remotely true.
Here's a hint: there's tens of millions of insured people through their employers that aren't sick all the fucking time, and are still paying premiums out of their paycheck withholdings.
Well, he's always had the option of pulling out a gold plated Colt 1911.45 and blowing someone's head open that called him an idiot, and he's never done that. Why would you think he would immediately go to launching a Minuteman-III?
Also, what military officer would give the launch order, after having sworn to protect and defend the constitution? That launch order would violate that oath, and amount to an illegal order which would not be followed.
This is so much handwringing and chicken little that it's beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, except that even Trump's detractors say that he has a better relationship with Russia than Obama ever did. If Trump is Putin's patsy, why would he push the big red button?
I would think that narrative would cause this clock to back off a bit - either the narrative is complete horseshit, or this newest setting of the clock is total propoganda. Maybe both.
As profitable as these insurance companies are, I have a feeling they would be just fine with a simple law that says "pre-existing conditions are not allowed as reasons for denying health insurance coverage." They'll bitch about it, but they'll cope with it and survive. Strangely, any time a new regulation has been handed down by government, the regulated industry pitches a fit about it, and then finds a way to get by under the new regulations. And they usually do better.
UHC announced record breaking profits at the same time as saying that the "affordable" care act reduced their earnings by $850M. Aetna also set record profits in 2015, before similarly hiking premiums. Yeah, I'm sure they'll all be bankrupt any time now. They're doing okay, where the rest of us are discovering the length, width, and breadth of the shaft.
Yeah, and while you are being so aggressive about your opinions, maybe you should realize that there are other people out there that work with all three too, including the person you replied to (me)... who wrote that post on a fucking MacBook Pro running macOS.
OS X has not advanced very much in the latest releases, and in fact has done some pretty shitty things like intentionally disabling the enumeration of GPUs via Thunderbolt for reasons that have never been explained, since it works just fine if you patch the kernel extension to allow it to work. Apple's hardware fucking sucks right now in comparison to the competition. If they are hell bent on letting the other operating systems catch up while letting all the other hardware vendors surpass them again, then I guess we're headed back to the mid-90s where we saw Apple desperate to sell computers that featured an old band-aid covered OS being driven by a lack-luster CPU that couldn't keep up.
You want that again? I don't. And the only way it doesn't happen is if people stop fawning at the glass and 'space grey' aluminum alter with a giant Apple logo on it, and force them to see that they are fucking the dog right now. A fucking gamer company makes a better notebook than them right now, for way cheaper. Apple should be embarrassed on that score alone.
First, I'm not a "leftie" so suck it. You know nothing about me. I didn't vote for Hillary, and insinuating that you have to be all-in for one candidate or another is asinine.
Second, when in history have telecommunications providers not abused their monopoly positions? When have these organizations not taken every single resource afforded to them and done the bare minimum with them? What about the $300B and counting that was charged as excise taxes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, handed directly to the telcos in exchange for exactly what is being proposed now, which we already paid for and should have had 10 years ago? Without the FCC rules that say that ISPs must not block, throttle, or prioritize-by-pay any legal traffic, what is to prevent them from not only charging you for the bandwidth you are using, but also charging the content provider for those same bits that you already paid for? Gee, that's a nice video streaming service you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it...
Third, this particular subject, the new FCC Chairman, voted against those rules, at the time saying it was a non-issue. Even though in the run-up to creating these rules, the FCC had actual copies of Netflix's paid peering agreements with Verizon and Comcast, which amount to exactly what I said in the previous paragraph. Why would he keep in place rules that he doesn't think are needed, when this administration is constantly talking about rolling back regulations made by the previous one?
So take this at face value: I'm allowed to disagree with individual actions of the administration, and agree with others (such as putting a stake through the heart of TPP). Just because I disagree with this one doesn't mean you get to paint me with some kind of 'leftie' brush, and it makes you look pretty god damn ignorant.
When quoting numbers of Executive Orders, please also include Presidential Memoranda, which carry the same basic weight of law, but just have a different title, and aren't numbered and indexed the way an EO is. Yes, Obama may have a lower EO count, but he issued 644 Presidential Memoranda that are basically the same thing, without the publicity and record keeping. Quite the record for 'the most transparent administration in history' that he wanted to run.
From this report published by the Congressional Research Service:
Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations are used extensively by Presidents to achieve policy goals, set uniform standards for managing the executive branch, or outline a policy view intended to influence the behavior of private citizens. The U.S. Constitution does not define these presidential instruments and does not explicitly vest the President with the authority to issue them. Nonetheless, such orders are accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power. Moreover, if they are based on appropriate authority, they have the force and effect of law.
The distinction between these instruments—executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations—seems to be more a matter of form than of substance, given that all three may be employed to direct and govern the actions of government officials and agencies. Moreover, if issued under a legitimate claim of authority and made public, a presidential directive could have the force and effect of law, “of which all courts are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect.” The only technical difference is that executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, while presidential memoranda and proclamations are published only when the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal effect.”
Bolded emphasis is mine, in order to back up my assertions about transparency above. Obama used Executive Orders when he wanted to make a big thing out of it, and Presidential Memos when he wanted less attention. And he used the Memo 3x as much as the EO. That's not very transparent.
And why did they lose the Congress? By ramming through legislation that the majority of Congressional districts didn't like.
Funny thing about representative government - if your representatives don't do what the people they represent want, they stop being representatives at the next election.
You do know that because it was deemed good for a single commonwealth, that doesn't mean that it's good for the other 49 states, right? Well, 48 and one more commonwealth (Kentucky).
I'm not saying there wasn't good stuff in the law - the ban on pre-existing conditions and the extension of dependent insurance is awesome. I just don't understand why those couldn't have been passed as simple laws without all the other shit that nobody likes.
Don't forget that people that had insurance already might actually be worse off - anyone with a Health Savings Account used to be able to buy over-the-counter medications with those pre-tax dollars. That went away with the "Affordable" Care Act.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, so this is why you put in place policies to restrict the amount of damage that can be done by ignorance, or a bad actor.
Step 1: Nobody should be logging in interactively as an administrative user. UNIX / Linux / OS X has sudo, Windows has 'run as administrator...'
Step 2: Everything should be running a firewall that has everything closed by default, and only things that need to receive traffic whitelisted. This firewall and it's rules should be actively monitored and maintained by some kind of automated configuration management.
Step 3: Any organization that is at all serious about network security should have an authenticated proxy server for outbound traffic, and that proxy should be the only thing allowed to talk to the Internet without a security review. Use this proxy to block known bad actors on the Internet.
That would drastically reduce the amount of exposure to attack, and it's unlikely that this county office has done any of them, much less all of them.
I see what you did there, but this is probably a bit closer to the real list.
Yeah, but those weren't actually declared wars. They were 'police actions' or 'armed conflicts' or some other trite bullshit.
Calling something what it actually is brings forth a whole new section of laws and regulations that nobody involved wants to deal with. So they skip it.
A lot of that unused airport has been taken up by DHL - CVG is one of their three global hubs. They employ 2500 people there, and just spent $100M to expand the facilities.
Yes, Delta has been decreasing service through CVG ever since their merger with Northwest Airlines which got them a shitload of gates in Detroit and Minneapolis. They also have given up their lease on the disused terminal at CVG that was only being used for storing snow removal equipment and training TSA search dogs, which will be torn down this year.
That being said, they just yesterday announced that they will be increasing flights out of CVG.
Begrudgingly? CVG is the second most active airport serving a city in Ohio.
I'm pretty sure they are happy that Cincinnati, with it's passengers and cargo, are right across the Ohio river.
Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky Airport is becoming much more of a cargo hub than an airport for passenger travel. Ever since Delta screwed the airport over by getting lots of construction concessions while using it as a hub, and then basically leaving town except for mostly small regional traffic to other hubs, there is a massive airport with four runways sitting there mostly empty. DHL took up a lot of the empty space in the pattern by building shitloads of warehouses nearby. Looks like Amazon is looking to do the same with their distribution center in Hebron, KY.
Probably a smart move. Lots of available infrastructure sitting there ready to be used (three 10,000 foot runways), in a state that really wants the jobs.
It was ambiguous, but "this" in the GP post probably referred to Slashdot denizens. Which is an extremely niche group of people who are not typical consumers.
Or, at least, it used to be.
How is that any different from any other software publisher on any other platform, ever?
Example: Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, which cuts off minimum support for otherwise perfectly working hardware. App developer X targets new version of Windows because it has a new spiffy API that allows them to cut out huge chunks of ass-pain code, causing their minimum OS requirement to be the new version of windows. Customer Y who has a PC that won't run the new version of Windows is stuck with old version of app X, which couldhave any of the issues above.
The world moves on, and backwards compatibility must be cut off at some point in order to do it.
If you have a 32-bit processor, why would you be able to update to a 64-bit only OS? Why would Apple release an OS for a 32-bit device that can't run 32-bit apps?
This is such a non-issue it's not even funny.
Article is still talking about iOS here, which is not x86 in any way. It's ARM.
No, it isn't. Have you heard of a "fat binary" that can contain both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the app? Does that concept not exist in "your world", as you put it?
it's only been a thing for like 10+ years now in the rest of "our world." Such a package would "support 64-bit" while not dropping 32-bit.
You are absolutely correct. Lots of people forget the days when Apple would announce some great product that was made out of unobtainable bits, resulting in massive delays and ridicule. "Hey look, we have this great new computer which trounces the competition in performance, but you won't be able to actually touch it for six months, by which time the competition will have caught up at lower prices!"
Tim Cook fixed that by straightening out the supply chain. He also helped with getting profitable by managing inventory at ridiculously tight margins in comparison to everyone else, because usually people don't want to buy stale computers after you announce new models.
None of these things were stuff that the great designers and technologists were any good at. It took a logistics guy to fix it, and that's what Cook is.
Thanks to Apple, and their non-refreshes of Mac products and simple storage bumps in devices that are otherwise identical, that has to actually be declared these days.
Since when does every single customer a health insurance company have cost more than they pay in premiums? Even before the Affordable Care Act, that wasn't even remotely true.
Here's a hint: there's tens of millions of insured people through their employers that aren't sick all the fucking time, and are still paying premiums out of their paycheck withholdings.
Well, he's always had the option of pulling out a gold plated Colt 1911 .45 and blowing someone's head open that called him an idiot, and he's never done that. Why would you think he would immediately go to launching a Minuteman-III?
Also, what military officer would give the launch order, after having sworn to protect and defend the constitution? That launch order would violate that oath, and amount to an illegal order which would not be followed.
This is so much handwringing and chicken little that it's beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, except that even Trump's detractors say that he has a better relationship with Russia than Obama ever did. If Trump is Putin's patsy, why would he push the big red button?
I would think that narrative would cause this clock to back off a bit - either the narrative is complete horseshit, or this newest setting of the clock is total propoganda. Maybe both.
As profitable as these insurance companies are, I have a feeling they would be just fine with a simple law that says "pre-existing conditions are not allowed as reasons for denying health insurance coverage." They'll bitch about it, but they'll cope with it and survive. Strangely, any time a new regulation has been handed down by government, the regulated industry pitches a fit about it, and then finds a way to get by under the new regulations. And they usually do better.
UHC announced record breaking profits at the same time as saying that the "affordable" care act reduced their earnings by $850M. Aetna also set record profits in 2015, before similarly hiking premiums. Yeah, I'm sure they'll all be bankrupt any time now. They're doing okay, where the rest of us are discovering the length, width, and breadth of the shaft.
Yes there are. Thanks for reminding me. =)
Yeah, and while you are being so aggressive about your opinions, maybe you should realize that there are other people out there that work with all three too, including the person you replied to (me)... who wrote that post on a fucking MacBook Pro running macOS.
OS X has not advanced very much in the latest releases, and in fact has done some pretty shitty things like intentionally disabling the enumeration of GPUs via Thunderbolt for reasons that have never been explained, since it works just fine if you patch the kernel extension to allow it to work. Apple's hardware fucking sucks right now in comparison to the competition. If they are hell bent on letting the other operating systems catch up while letting all the other hardware vendors surpass them again, then I guess we're headed back to the mid-90s where we saw Apple desperate to sell computers that featured an old band-aid covered OS being driven by a lack-luster CPU that couldn't keep up.
You want that again? I don't. And the only way it doesn't happen is if people stop fawning at the glass and 'space grey' aluminum alter with a giant Apple logo on it, and force them to see that they are fucking the dog right now. A fucking gamer company makes a better notebook than them right now, for way cheaper. Apple should be embarrassed on that score alone.
First, I'm not a "leftie" so suck it. You know nothing about me. I didn't vote for Hillary, and insinuating that you have to be all-in for one candidate or another is asinine.
Second, when in history have telecommunications providers not abused their monopoly positions? When have these organizations not taken every single resource afforded to them and done the bare minimum with them? What about the $300B and counting that was charged as excise taxes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, handed directly to the telcos in exchange for exactly what is being proposed now, which we already paid for and should have had 10 years ago? Without the FCC rules that say that ISPs must not block, throttle, or prioritize-by-pay any legal traffic, what is to prevent them from not only charging you for the bandwidth you are using, but also charging the content provider for those same bits that you already paid for? Gee, that's a nice video streaming service you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it...
Third, this particular subject, the new FCC Chairman, voted against those rules, at the time saying it was a non-issue. Even though in the run-up to creating these rules, the FCC had actual copies of Netflix's paid peering agreements with Verizon and Comcast, which amount to exactly what I said in the previous paragraph. Why would he keep in place rules that he doesn't think are needed, when this administration is constantly talking about rolling back regulations made by the previous one?
So take this at face value: I'm allowed to disagree with individual actions of the administration, and agree with others (such as putting a stake through the heart of TPP). Just because I disagree with this one doesn't mean you get to paint me with some kind of 'leftie' brush, and it makes you look pretty god damn ignorant.
When quoting numbers of Executive Orders, please also include Presidential Memoranda, which carry the same basic weight of law, but just have a different title, and aren't numbered and indexed the way an EO is. Yes, Obama may have a lower EO count, but he issued 644 Presidential Memoranda that are basically the same thing, without the publicity and record keeping. Quite the record for 'the most transparent administration in history' that he wanted to run.
From this report published by the Congressional Research Service:
Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations are used extensively by Presidents
to achieve policy goals, set uniform standards for managing the executive branch, or outline a
policy view intended to influence the behavior of private citizens. The U.S. Constitution does not
define these presidential instruments and does not explicitly vest the President with the authority
to issue them. Nonetheless, such orders are accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power.
Moreover, if they are based on appropriate authority, they have the force and effect of law.
The distinction between these instruments—executive orders, presidential memoranda, and
proclamations—seems to be more a matter of form than of substance, given that all three may be
employed to direct and govern the actions of government officials and agencies. Moreover, if
issued under a legitimate claim of authority and made public, a presidential directive could have
the force and effect of law, “of which all courts are bound to take notice, and to which all courts
are bound to give effect.” The only technical difference is that executive orders must be
published in the Federal Register, while presidential memoranda and proclamations are published
only when the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal effect.”
Bolded emphasis is mine, in order to back up my assertions about transparency above. Obama used Executive Orders when he wanted to make a big thing out of it, and Presidential Memos when he wanted less attention. And he used the Memo 3x as much as the EO. That's not very transparent.
And why did they lose the Congress? By ramming through legislation that the majority of Congressional districts didn't like.
Funny thing about representative government - if your representatives don't do what the people they represent want, they stop being representatives at the next election.
You do know that because it was deemed good for a single commonwealth, that doesn't mean that it's good for the other 49 states, right? Well, 48 and one more commonwealth (Kentucky).
I'm not saying there wasn't good stuff in the law - the ban on pre-existing conditions and the extension of dependent insurance is awesome. I just don't understand why those couldn't have been passed as simple laws without all the other shit that nobody likes.
Don't forget that people that had insurance already might actually be worse off - anyone with a Health Savings Account used to be able to buy over-the-counter medications with those pre-tax dollars. That went away with the "Affordable" Care Act.