It's not strictly FUD. For people who leave an AP open because they don't know better, this is a good service. For people who leave a WAP open because of some kind of principled and conscentious decsion, there's nothing there they're not already familiar with and willing to risk.
And let's face it. There is risk. If some random bad actor uses your unsecured WAP for random badness, it will inconvenience you. You will be a "person of interest" until they find a better suspect. Again, this might be a risk worth taking if you decide it is, but for a clueless schlub who just bought the router and plugged it in? Not so much.
Ejection seats were an engineering answer to the conflict between an organic requirement (pilot must be able to bail out) and the increased speed of jet aircraft, which made it impossible to bail out safely by just opening a canopy and climbing out with a parachute. And I assure you, the need to resolve this conflict wasn't uncovered in a think tank of life-support system engineers saying "I bet the pilot won't be able to just climb out." Pilots were injured or killed bailing out of fast-moving non-jet aircraft in the propeller-power combat aviation era, and even then ejection seats weren't prevalent until jet-powered planes made it clear that bailing out unassisted was a non-survivable option for high-performance jet aircrews. This would be an example of the rule about including powered egress systems into jet warplanes being written in the blood of those who died trying to escape a fast-moving plane without an ejection seat.
Hey, if it saves you a $10,000 dollar funeral from a tiger attack, that's a $9,950 savings. Good ROI.
The difference is how realistically you assess the POI, as they call it in engineering-management-speak: Probabilty of Incidence. (Or "POO", Probability of Occurrence. I like that one. Anything that reminds me of all the crap in a big program's management and engineering environment makes me smile).
So anyway, if you convince yourself it's not going to happen, you save yourself $x dollars (more than $100k, I assure you) and you leave your time on the PM team with awards for keeping cost and schedule escalation under control. If you spend the $100k, you will never EVER be able to prove it was well invested, because the incident that doesn't happen because of your precautions is indistinguishable that the incident that doesn't happen because it was impossible from the outset.
Sorry. It's a numbers game. Something that's not absolutely not guaranteed to happen WILL NOT HAPPEN in order to justify not paying for prevention.
There's a corollary to this. I usually express it by paraphrasing an old saying in Safety Engineering: "Safety decisions are written in blood."
Cynically speaking, handwaving the risk away costs absolutely nothing until something bad happens. So the $0 immediate cost of doing nothing usually wins.
Shortsighted, true. But most program managers are on a program just a few years, and probably count on being able to escape the impact zone of the scandal before the program craters. Again, cynical, but in my observation, true to varying degrees.
No denying that shaving off so little and leaving the program and the warfighters at such known risk was a tragic mistake. But I don't know the genesis of the $100,000 cost for software mods. TBH, the Engineering Change Proposal process required to convey the modified requirements in order to change the software as directed may have required more than that much cost just in terms of specification and process costs. Add to that the uptick in formal requirements verification costs, and program schedule delays by adding yet another function point to the development schedule of an already-late program.
No matter what it cost, it would have been worth it, but keep an open mind as to whether a mere $.1 million upper over the program costs is credible.
Remember, this is a DoD development program regulated by the Federal Acquisition Regulations and DoD Systems Architecture and Engineering processes. There is no such thing as a cheap change to program baseline.
If the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, he'll never turn against him. That way the power of the Presidency (summarized by the Nixon quote "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.") is not threatened.
Oh, you mean the public good rationale behind a presidentially-appointed AG? None. None whatsoever.
From a business ("risk management") perspective, it often costs no more to offload liability or otherwise mitigate the impacts of a security event than to actively prevent the security event. In that case, is anyone surprised a business makes a business decision? If you ask the business, security features support the business and not the other way around, so business priorities always take precedence.
And yeah, that means that if there's a breach, if you can decrease the overall cost of notification and settlement with the victims, letting the breach happen may be the more business-savvy choice.
The same reason that not everyone gets married to the same person for their entire life. Variety. Curiousity. Fashion. (Yeah, let's be honest. There's an element of that. Or its "I was using <distro> before (it was mainstream|they sold out)" opposite.
I think the better question is why people put up with being effectively shackled or walled in by their choice of operating system and applications.
I don't know about this particular law, but laws regarding promotional material for elections (or defamatory material) are generally there to help prevent corruption.
Yes. Good point. History teachs that corruption festers and blossoms in the light of transparency and information-sharing. You can't have secure elections without obscure elections.
For many topics, if we're talking about effective edits which will not attract instantaneous reversion by an Editor, yeah, it's a damn small exclusive club.
It's kind of the opposite of the problem as TFA's: in the cited example, they bought their entry into the clique, but in this case, you join the cabal by integration with the hivemind.
I guess it's the same problem, if you boil it down: it's an insider's job. Even logged-in contributors are second-class citizens.
Even worse: your tin-foil skivvies will crimp when your dedicated TSA agent gives your junk its mandatory anti-weapon-smuggling squeeze. Try to work those kinks out while strapped into your three fourths of a cubic meter of cattle cargo space in Economy.
The rather lightweight description in TFA (stupid sound-bite TV journalism) makes it sound like the order to "delete" her FB account was at her first court appearance (arraignment?). I'm not sure if there was a specific condition to the judge's order (like a bail condition), or if the judge just issued an order cold and expected it to stick.
In a way, it's a clear statement that the speaker doesn't get the point. (Or doesn't care to get the point.)
The word balloon in the "start position" of the final frame says it all: "I just didn't expect [the world] to be so big."
Your graphospasms are the webcomic equivalent of becoming footsore after attempting to walk the entire surface of the Earth. Zooming out is implicitly cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not strictly FUD. For people who leave an AP open because they don't know better, this is a good service. For people who leave a WAP open because of some kind of principled and conscentious decsion, there's nothing there they're not already familiar with and willing to risk.
And let's face it. There is risk. If some random bad actor uses your unsecured WAP for random badness, it will inconvenience you. You will be a "person of interest" until they find a better suspect. Again, this might be a risk worth taking if you decide it is, but for a clueless schlub who just bought the router and plugged it in? Not so much.
Ejection seats were an engineering answer to the conflict between an organic requirement (pilot must be able to bail out) and the increased speed of jet aircraft, which made it impossible to bail out safely by just opening a canopy and climbing out with a parachute. And I assure you, the need to resolve this conflict wasn't uncovered in a think tank of life-support system engineers saying "I bet the pilot won't be able to just climb out." Pilots were injured or killed bailing out of fast-moving non-jet aircraft in the propeller-power combat aviation era, and even then ejection seats weren't prevalent until jet-powered planes made it clear that bailing out unassisted was a non-survivable option for high-performance jet aircrews. This would be an example of the rule about including powered egress systems into jet warplanes being written in the blood of those who died trying to escape a fast-moving plane without an ejection seat.
No, this is good. Scientific research ships should be named after astronauts, cosmonauts, tyconauts, and other kinds of space-faring exploring types.
Maybe they'll name one after Gus Grissom. And then the Klingons can blow it up.
Here, buy my patented tiger-repellant rock. $50.
Hey, if it saves you a $10,000 dollar funeral from a tiger attack, that's a $9,950 savings. Good ROI.
The difference is how realistically you assess the POI, as they call it in engineering-management-speak: Probabilty of Incidence. (Or "POO", Probability of Occurrence. I like that one. Anything that reminds me of all the crap in a big program's management and engineering environment makes me smile).
So anyway, if you convince yourself it's not going to happen, you save yourself $x dollars (more than $100k, I assure you) and you leave your time on the PM team with awards for keeping cost and schedule escalation under control. If you spend the $100k, you will never EVER be able to prove it was well invested, because the incident that doesn't happen because of your precautions is indistinguishable that the incident that doesn't happen because it was impossible from the outset.
Sorry. It's a numbers game. Something that's not absolutely not guaranteed to happen WILL NOT HAPPEN in order to justify not paying for prevention.
There's a corollary to this. I usually express it by paraphrasing an old saying in Safety Engineering: "Safety decisions are written in blood."
Cynically speaking, handwaving the risk away costs absolutely nothing until something bad happens. So the $0 immediate cost of doing nothing usually wins.
Shortsighted, true. But most program managers are on a program just a few years, and probably count on being able to escape the impact zone of the scandal before the program craters. Again, cynical, but in my observation, true to varying degrees.
No denying that shaving off so little and leaving the program and the warfighters at such known risk was a tragic mistake. But I don't know the genesis of the $100,000 cost for software mods. TBH, the Engineering Change Proposal process required to convey the modified requirements in order to change the software as directed may have required more than that much cost just in terms of specification and process costs. Add to that the uptick in formal requirements verification costs, and program schedule delays by adding yet another function point to the development schedule of an already-late program.
No matter what it cost, it would have been worth it, but keep an open mind as to whether a mere $.1 million upper over the program costs is credible.
Remember, this is a DoD development program regulated by the Federal Acquisition Regulations and DoD Systems Architecture and Engineering processes. There is no such thing as a cheap change to program baseline.
Yes. It's suspiciously un-Apple.
Tim Cook came up in Apple, right? He wasn't a plant from a competitor, like has happened for other companies in the mobile space?
"Vile Rat" is an anagram for "I Travel". The Foreign Service seems like a logical choice.
If the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, he'll never turn against him. That way the power of the Presidency (summarized by the Nixon quote "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.") is not threatened.
Oh, you mean the public good rationale behind a presidentially-appointed AG? None. None whatsoever.
From a business ("risk management") perspective, it often costs no more to offload liability or otherwise mitigate the impacts of a security event than to actively prevent the security event. In that case, is anyone surprised a business makes a business decision? If you ask the business, security features support the business and not the other way around, so business priorities always take precedence.
And yeah, that means that if there's a breach, if you can decrease the overall cost of notification and settlement with the victims, letting the breach happen may be the more business-savvy choice.
Sucks, but that's the profit motive for you.
The same reason that not everyone gets married to the same person for their entire life. Variety. Curiousity. Fashion. (Yeah, let's be honest. There's an element of that. Or its "I was using <distro> before (it was mainstream|they sold out)" opposite.
I think the better question is why people put up with being effectively shackled or walled in by their choice of operating system and applications.
Yes. Good point. History teachs that corruption festers and blossoms in the light of transparency and information-sharing. You can't have secure elections without obscure elections.
It's just another instantiation of the "Surrounded by idiots" meme: the villian will only have incompetent minions and henchmen.
We had that project. Its benefits to Mankind are delicious.
I dunno. If I can't afford $3.00 for gas, I can't buy it... and, by your definition, actually being unable to buy something is a shortage.
Just sayin'.
Damn you slashdot. An edit button may take you out of the wagon wheel era.
Adding an edit button would be blasphemous.
Hell, complaining about the lack of an edit button is pretty unpious. When was the last time you went to Cathedral? Don't lie, we're going to check.
"Bring me a hard-copy printout of the Internet and a black pemanent marker..."
For many topics, if we're talking about effective edits which will not attract instantaneous reversion by an Editor, yeah, it's a damn small exclusive club.
It's kind of the opposite of the problem as TFA's: in the cited example, they bought their entry into the clique, but in this case, you join the cabal by integration with the hivemind.
I guess it's the same problem, if you boil it down: it's an insider's job. Even logged-in contributors are second-class citizens.
It's not software lupus. It's never software lupus.
Even worse: your tin-foil skivvies will crimp when your dedicated TSA agent gives your junk its mandatory anti-weapon-smuggling squeeze. Try to work those kinks out while strapped into your three fourths of a cubic meter of cattle cargo space in Economy.
Poe's Law. Distinguishing sarcasm from genuine fanboi-ism is potentially beyond AI-hard.
The rather lightweight description in TFA (stupid sound-bite TV journalism) makes it sound like the order to "delete" her FB account was at her first court appearance (arraignment?). I'm not sure if there was a specific condition to the judge's order (like a bail condition), or if the judge just issued an order cold and expected it to stick.
However, it's not like there isn't precedent for a judge to issue an order supressing freedom of speech early in a court proceeding. The rationale may be completely different, but the mechanism is basically the same.
needs a zoom function!
I've heard this said over 50 times today.
In a way, it's a clear statement that the speaker doesn't get the point. (Or doesn't care to get the point.)
The word balloon in the "start position" of the final frame says it all: "I just didn't expect [the world] to be so big."
Your graphospasms are the webcomic equivalent of becoming footsore after attempting to walk the entire surface of the Earth. Zooming out is implicitly cheating.
Except slot an SDCard for extra storage.
OK, that's a hint off-topic, sorta. But FWIW it's the reason I won't settle for a Nexus 7.
WAIT! Don't do that! The collateral damage may include Lousiana and parts of Arkansas!
Oh. Hmm. Never mind. Carry on, and good shootin'.