The problem with AV software is, it will only catch threats that are already known (and usually for vulnerabilities that are already patched).
Think about it: if you were writing malware, wouldn't you test to make sure it could get past the major antivirus packages? That's just due diligence. If your QA didn't do that, you would fire them.
And if that weren't bad enough, some of the Antiviruses are worse user experience than actually getting a virus......
And when I want to know the temperature, why would I rely solely on a device that does NOT measure temps directly but has to extrapolate?
Because even with all the problems you stated, which are real, the satellite record is still an order of magnitude more simple than the terrestrial record.
Yeah, me too, but remember that C64 BASIC didn't have an else statement, and even the IF statement was somewhat limited, meaning GOTOs everywhere. BASIC is not my choice for programming, even on the C64 anymore (where assembly is actually cleaner, and the assembler can do a good job re-numbering the lines).
And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Temperature satellite records go back to the 70s. See for example. Generally I consider them to be much more reliable than terrestrial data, for a lot of reasons, but essentially they're harder to mess up.
Who in the world is using Oracle?? I'm an IT consultant, I work with a lot of Fortune 500 companies,
BTW the Fortune 500 is not a good sample for database popularity.......even if every single one of them used Oracle (and most of them probably use more than one database in various places), it would still only be 500 installations. The Fortune 500 are looked at because they are big, not because they are representative of what most companies are doing.
General interest in the system (ie, Google trends)
Frequency of technical discussions about the system.(Stackoverflow + DBA Stack Exchange)
Number of job offers, in which the system is mentioned (Job search engine Indeed and Simply Hired (I'd never heard of them))
Number of profiles in professional networks, in which the system is mentioned. (LinkedIn)
Relevance in social networks (Twitter)
They use a 'carefully tuned algorithm' to combine all those results, and get a number for each database. It really makes me wonder who in the world is using Oracle, because they are very, very far away from any company I've ever worked with.
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons?
Yeah, if they're building an IoT board without thinking of security from the ground up, at every level of their design, then it's going to be a fail.
Even if it's a commercial success, it will just become a hacker playground.
More likely, she is ignorant of technology, and the plaintiff's lawyers did a lousy job explaining the issue. The judge noticed a (incorrect) similarity to another case, and thought she should rule in a similar way.
Remember judges are elected, and sometimes they can be really, really dumb.
The plaintiff tried that argument. Here is what the judge said in response:
Whalen also argues that she has standing because she
lost time and money associated with credit monitoring and other
mitigation expenses. (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 8.) But the Supreme Court
has dismissed this type of argument, explaining that plaintiffs
“cannot manufacture standing” through credit monitoring. Clapper
v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1151, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264
(2013). “If the law were otherwise, an enterprising plaintiff would be able to secure a lower standard for Article III standing
simply by making an expenditure based on a nonparanoid fear.” Id.
That conclusion rings especially true here where Whalen cancelled
her affected credit card. See Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro,
Inc., No. 14-CV-4787, 2014 WL 7005097, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10,
2014) (“[T]here is no reason to believe that identity theft
protection was necessary after [the plaintiff] cancelled the
affected debit card.”). Thus, these allegations are insufficient
to confer standing.
The judge's argument here seems weak to me. In Clapper v Amnesty, the credit monitoring was somewhat speculative. In this case, when you know your personal information has been stolen, it is best practices. Also, the judge completely ignored the time wasted cancelling the credit card. You can read it yourself.
As someone else mentioned, I'd think the fact that the credit card number was demonstrably given to a criminal is already prima facie evidence of harm. If I stole your credit card, handed it to the nearest homeless person and told him, "have fun with this," that would be some clear harm, even if the CC company reimbursed me.
Ok, if this has no harm to the end user, i.e. nothing physical stolen, then why would copying music or movies be damaging?
There are laws that specifically address the topic of copyright infringement, setting penalties regardless of whether damage was inflicted. In some cases, punitive penalties can be applied beyond the damage actually caused.
In the case of user data being lost, there is no particular law that applies, so the lawyers need to find existing laws and use them to sue, showing why they apply in this situation. In this situation, the lawyers sued under laws that allow people to recover damage, but they didn't demonstrate that there was damage. So to continue, they can either find a way to show that their was damage, or find a different set of laws to sue under
(ianal ymmv never trust me for anything important, etc).
In fact, that's kind of why I am surprised that these cases keep turning out this way. Then again, from what I've read, nobody has presented it quite like that. I touched on that in a prior post - in this thread, and it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult to argue that they have standing, that there was harm (even if it is minor), and that they deserve to have an opportunity to put their case in front of a jury.
Given the huge amounts of money at stake, and the fact that it keeps happening over and over, I'd kind of expect that sooner or later, a lawyer is going to find a legal theory that makes it stick.....
I've had my credit card number stolen. Research was 5-10 minutes. Filling out the forms was another 5-10. When I got the new card, updating places that used the card for payments was yet another 5-10.
So that's 30 minutes of lost time for you (genius that you are, you do it quickly)........multiply 30 minutes of lost time by several million people and you have the kind of damages that class action lawsuits were created for.
At this point merchants are starting to give me the stink-eye for not having a C&P card as they now have to pick up the tab for fraudulent transactions.
They don't have to pick it up......if the bank hasn't sent you a C&P card, but the merchant has a C&P card reader, then it's up to the bank to pay for fraud.
Twelve hours? How many vendors and services do you deal with? Except for the minor inconvenience of being with a credit card for a few days, there's not much work involved
It's easy for you, if you've already gone through it, and know what to do. If you have to research it, then it's going to take longer.
I don't know exactly how big 'web scale' is, but I do know several companies who are not in the fortune 1000 that have petabytes of data.....
If you're trying to keep analytics of everything users do (for advertising, of course), then it can add up quickly.....
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with AV software is, it will only catch threats that are already known (and usually for vulnerabilities that are already patched).
Think about it: if you were writing malware, wouldn't you test to make sure it could get past the major antivirus packages? That's just due diligence. If your QA didn't do that, you would fire them.
And if that weren't bad enough, some of the Antiviruses are worse user experience than actually getting a virus......
And when I want to know the temperature, why would I rely solely on a device that does NOT measure temps directly but has to extrapolate?
Because even with all the problems you stated, which are real, the satellite record is still an order of magnitude more simple than the terrestrial record.
It has a nice useful library of I/o functions.
Libraries are usually more important than the language, anyway.
Yeah, me too, but remember that C64 BASIC didn't have an else statement, and even the IF statement was somewhat limited, meaning GOTOs everywhere. BASIC is not my choice for programming, even on the C64 anymore (where assembly is actually cleaner, and the assembler can do a good job re-numbering the lines).
It's better to just trust the satellite record. (Also, it's fairly annoying how infrequently the error bars are included on those temperature graphs).
And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Temperature satellite records go back to the 70s. See for example. Generally I consider them to be much more reliable than terrestrial data, for a lot of reasons, but essentially they're harder to mess up.
The only piece of Oracle which is complete and utter horse sh** is in tweaking and to a lesser extent management of environments.
And the syntax for transactional DDL is weird, and PLSQL is weird and annoying.......I'm sure there's more.
Who in the world is using Oracle?? I'm an IT consultant, I work with a lot of Fortune 500 companies,
BTW the Fortune 500 is not a good sample for database popularity.......even if every single one of them used Oracle (and most of them probably use more than one database in various places), it would still only be 500 installations. The Fortune 500 are looked at because they are big, not because they are representative of what most companies are doing.
Yes, there are so many questions that the stack overflows.
Maybe that's the answer then? Oracle is popular because it's well-integrated into ERP. If you don't use ERP, then you won't see Oracle in many places.
I was wondering that too, here is how it was measured:
General interest in the system (ie, Google trends)
Frequency of technical discussions about the system.(Stackoverflow + DBA Stack Exchange)
Number of job offers, in which the system is mentioned (Job search engine Indeed and Simply Hired (I'd never heard of them))
Number of profiles in professional networks, in which the system is mentioned. (LinkedIn)
Relevance in social networks (Twitter)
They use a 'carefully tuned algorithm' to combine all those results, and get a number for each database. It really makes me wonder who in the world is using Oracle, because they are very, very far away from any company I've ever worked with.
So make them smart. IoT your pistol today!
That is when a griefer-hacker becomes a dictator.
I wonder how they would make my Mosin Nagant "smart"? Or the millions of other antique, collectable, and still perfectly functioning 19-20th century military weapons?
Probably something like this. Completely detachable, can be made to work with any firearm.
good point
Yeah, if they're building an IoT board without thinking of security from the ground up, at every level of their design, then it's going to be a fail.
Even if it's a commercial success, it will just become a hacker playground.
Near as I can tell, the judge was bought.
More likely, she is ignorant of technology, and the plaintiff's lawyers did a lousy job explaining the issue. The judge noticed a (incorrect) similarity to another case, and thought she should rule in a similar way.
Remember judges are elected, and sometimes they can be really, really dumb.
Whalen also argues that she has standing because she lost time and money associated with credit monitoring and other mitigation expenses. (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 8.) But the Supreme Court has dismissed this type of argument, explaining that plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing” through credit monitoring. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1151, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2013). “If the law were otherwise, an enterprising plaintiff would be able to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by making an expenditure based on a nonparanoid fear.” Id.
That conclusion rings especially true here where Whalen cancelled her affected credit card. See Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. 14-CV-4787, 2014 WL 7005097, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2014) (“[T]here is no reason to believe that identity theft protection was necessary after [the plaintiff] cancelled the affected debit card.”). Thus, these allegations are insufficient to confer standing.
The judge's argument here seems weak to me. In Clapper v Amnesty, the credit monitoring was somewhat speculative. In this case, when you know your personal information has been stolen, it is best practices. Also, the judge completely ignored the time wasted cancelling the credit card. You can read it yourself.
As someone else mentioned, I'd think the fact that the credit card number was demonstrably given to a criminal is already prima facie evidence of harm. If I stole your credit card, handed it to the nearest homeless person and told him, "have fun with this," that would be some clear harm, even if the CC company reimbursed me.
Ok, if this has no harm to the end user, i.e. nothing physical stolen, then why would copying music or movies be damaging?
There are laws that specifically address the topic of copyright infringement, setting penalties regardless of whether damage was inflicted. In some cases, punitive penalties can be applied beyond the damage actually caused.
In the case of user data being lost, there is no particular law that applies, so the lawyers need to find existing laws and use them to sue, showing why they apply in this situation. In this situation, the lawyers sued under laws that allow people to recover damage, but they didn't demonstrate that there was damage. So to continue, they can either find a way to show that their was damage, or find a different set of laws to sue under
(ianal ymmv never trust me for anything important, etc).
In fact, that's kind of why I am surprised that these cases keep turning out this way. Then again, from what I've read, nobody has presented it quite like that. I touched on that in a prior post - in this thread, and it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult to argue that they have standing, that there was harm (even if it is minor), and that they deserve to have an opportunity to put their case in front of a jury.
Given the huge amounts of money at stake, and the fact that it keeps happening over and over, I'd kind of expect that sooner or later, a lawyer is going to find a legal theory that makes it stick.....
"dismissed without prejudice" means they can re-file later.
Yes (though it might be a ~$250 court filing fee)
I've had my credit card number stolen. Research was 5-10 minutes. Filling out the forms was another 5-10. When I got the new card, updating places that used the card for payments was yet another 5-10.
So that's 30 minutes of lost time for you (genius that you are, you do it quickly)........multiply 30 minutes of lost time by several million people and you have the kind of damages that class action lawsuits were created for.
At this point merchants are starting to give me the stink-eye for not having a C&P card as they now have to pick up the tab for fraudulent transactions.
They don't have to pick it up......if the bank hasn't sent you a C&P card, but the merchant has a C&P card reader, then it's up to the bank to pay for fraud.
Twelve hours? How many vendors and services do you deal with? Except for the minor inconvenience of being with a credit card for a few days, there's not much work involved
It's easy for you, if you've already gone through it, and know what to do. If you have to research it, then it's going to take longer.
I don't know exactly how big 'web scale' is, but I do know several companies who are not in the fortune 1000 that have petabytes of data.....
If you're trying to keep analytics of everything users do (for advertising, of course), then it can add up quickly.....
That's like saying that the woman that chooses to marry the man that will beat her everyday deserves the beating.
Whether she 'deserves' it or not, she was stupid for marrying him.