Without even signing up for Linkedin I could tell they were a spam factory. I was getting incessant sign-up emails because a friend was listed and made the mistake of giving them emails of his friends. I yelled so loud I think Linkedin must have put me on their blacklist, as I've not seen a peep out of them since, and that was several years ago.
Recruiters are just another form of telemarketer. I remember a good one or two back in the 1980s, but if they still exist they're well hidden. Fortunately, I've been around so long I have no need for such foolishness-- I know enough people now if I were to need it, I can find out about good jobs via word of mouth or personal email. Certainly any place that only wants fresh grads is going to be a place only an actual fresh grad would ever want to work, and even then only long enough to build up a resume.
The companies I'm familiar with have resorted to only hiring the fresh-out-of-college, often at job fairs targeted at new college grads. This is because 1) they're cheaper and 2) you can abuse them and they won't know the difference. This is, essentially, policy at some companies. And the corporate offices of these are often in red states that don't have any kind of rules against it. Combine that with management who thinks periodic cheerleading meetings where everything is couched in sports metaphors is the way to motivate people, and you realize that except for the communications technology, business operations sophistication and product quality has devolved to the level that hasn't been common since about 1920.
No it won't, things are moving north/south at the faults for the most part. It IS becoming a dust bowl though, and many costal properties are at risk from sea level rise. But "fall into the ocean" on an earthquake, not hardly.
No, it's not anti-business, it's anti-certain-types-of-business. And "small" business appears to be one of those types. But that's happening pretty much everywhere, not at all unique to California.
I don't wear a watch. Last watch I bought was at least 15 years ago and it lasted 2 days. I'm hard on watches. They get bashed into things routinely. I'll buy a smartwatch as soon as someone posts a youtube video subjecting one to a point-blank diacharge of a 44 magnum at it, and it survives.
I don't see a lot of difference between the NSA and FCC, and in fact, I suspect the NSA is in favor of net neutrality so that their collection traffic doesn't get choked off by someone's ISP unless they tag it somehow so the ISPs all know who's data it is, which I'm sure the NSA would prefer not to advertise.
I don't get cruise sales calls -- I get calls for carpet cleaning, construction contracting, phony IRS agents, and phony credit agencies. I suspect many are calling from foreign countries. They obviously aren't deterred one whit by US laws or agencies. I just use a box to screen everything unless it's on a whitelist. And blacklisted calls get a disconnected number signal. For the most part, problem solved but I can see from the call logs who's tried and what scam they are pulling by googling the number. What I wonder is, why haven't we seen a massive bust of robocall scammers by the FBI? A couple of reasons-- one, they're not in the US, two, they're paying for the call, so the phone company is making money off them, and three, rich people are mostly unaffected by and/or oblivious of the problem.
I claim my First Amendment rights include the right to speak in unbreakable code. And as far as anyone else is concerned, it may just be pure gibberish. It's up to me to decide what it means. I could even do this verbally, by reciting words that are translated to other words using a one-time pad. And if spending money is considered protected speech, speaking in unbreakable code must be as well. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says the speech has to be intelligible, by the Government or anyone else.
So, the neutrality debate is about network providers adjusting performance for different types of content. It seems to me, far more important question than if they are legally allowed to do it, is WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT? A much bigger problem is the fact that they are able to tell anything at all about the content, because that means it's not secure and should be a violation of privacy. I'd prefer net neutrality failed, because we shouldn't be depending on network providers to monitor our traffic for content type, but we should fix that by making it impossible, not by legal means which clearly no longer apply to the government itself and by extension, the companies that facilitate communications. FCC net neutrality ruling doesn't fix the problem, it just lets the government PRETEND they've fixed the problem. Plus, the govenrment wants net neutrality, else how are they going to "fast lane" their surveillance program traffic without exposing it to dweebs at the ISPs?
If they don't start calling you an engineer you'll likely hit the salary ceiling before long. I'm not sure who decided that, but it seems to be the case. And of course, even if they do call you an engineer, you'll hit the ceiling soon enough, just not quite as soon...
They are the intelligence community, not our national cybersecurity consulting firm, and they only ought to be notifying the public if the risk to national security involved in leaving the vulnerability open is greater than the risk to national security involved in losing the intelligence that could be gained from it.
What you're saying is we HAVE NO national cybersecurity entity whose purpose is to protect our infrastructure from bad actors using exactly the kinds of methods and exploits we're seeing here. And given that, we have to rely on Kaspersky to do it for us. Not only is it then a good thing, it's long overdue.
So everyone should just leave their doors wide open so the cops never have to break a door down to nab a crook? Yeah, right. If the NSA can hack into our computers, the bad guys can too. The best way to improve cybersecurity is to fix all the exploitable holes they've been using. But instead of helping us to secure our systems they've left them vulnerable because they're too lazy to pound the pavement, get individual warrants and plant bugs. Having every computer system in the world remain vulnerable made their job easier, so they chose that route, which also made the bad guys efforts easier too. But hey, it's job security, eh?
So, your manager asks for it, tells you we need it. You provide him the above explanation and his eyes glaze over. He clearly either doesn't understand your explanation or doesn't care. He repeats his original statement-- I want it, we need it. You go around that way a few times and get nowhere. What do you do?
I suppose you could look for another job.
So when that happened to me, pretty much just like that, what I did was use a hash on the passwords (SHA-256 IIRC, it was a long time ago), then asymmetrically encrypt/decrypt the resultant hash with hardcoded keys just so they could say they secured their passwords with asymmetrical encryption. And customers are very unlikely to know the difference (or at least, ours were), so there was no real risk if the sales force blabbed about it like that as if it were a useful feature. When management gets a security buzzword stuck in their heads and they think they want it and can't or won't be convinced it's not the solution they think it is, you give it to to them if you want to keep your job regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. Some developers won't even bother to find out what the right solution is, or have the luxury to actually implement it. I gave them what they needed, then bolted what they wanted on top as window dressing. And management will never read my comments on that code, which explain exactly what happened.
Why would you use it? Because someone in management read some unrelated article about security somewhere that said it was necessary for security and if you don't use it in your implementation you're not doing it right. Or someone in sales had a customer ask if our product uses it for security so now whether or not it makes any sense you have to figure out how to make use of it because management won't take "that's complete nonsense and it's useless in that context" for an answer.
I've been doing it for 35 years and only once was I asked to do anything with encryption. The funny thing is, what I was asked to do made no sense whatsoever, and would be completely ineffective towards their security goal, essentially demanding I use an encryption standard that was for a completely different job-- I was to essentially use a screwdriver to hammer nails. I was unable to convince them otherwise, so I decided to use the right tool to do the job, then bolted the bogus screwdriver on top so they also got what they thought they wanted. I didn't need to do that but I just couldn't see going through some useless security ritual without actually providing any security. They got what they needed only because I cared enough to spend the extra time to give it to them. The thing to realize is management is often incompetent as well, especially when they think they know something about a technical solution merely because an ignorant customer asked them, "does it do ?" I hoped they wouldn't advertise what they thought they were doing because any customer who knew the subject would recognize it as bogus voodoo.
Good security is hard. VERY HARD. The government is often bad at it. Sony is bad at it. Banks are bad at it. In fact, I can't point to anyone who's known to be good at it except maybe Zimmerman, and I don't even know that for sure. And users don't like it and will often bypass or otherwise subvert it themselves. But it's not because engineers are incompetent. Often they're not even asked to provide security and it isn't even on their radar. And sometimes when they are asked to provide security they are saddled with bogus requirements for how it should be done. Good security affects the user interface and the users behavior, and that's an area that companies prefer to stay out of because it's unpopular, at odds with productivity, and isn't readily seen to contribute to their bottom line.
Except the Democrats shifted RIGHT. Remember when unions actually made some difference? I do. Did the Democrats do anything to fight the "giant sucking sound" of jobs being outsourced? Remember who signed NAFTA?
Are you kidding? In the '70s we still had unions. Both the Republicans and Democrats moved to outsource labor which has now mostly neutered the unions. The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot talked about came to pass. And since then wages have stagnated except for those at the top.
Slashdot Mirror
Without even signing up for Linkedin I could tell they were a spam factory. I was getting incessant sign-up emails because a friend was listed and made the mistake of giving them emails of his friends. I yelled so loud I think Linkedin must have put me on their blacklist, as I've not seen a peep out of them since, and that was several years ago. Recruiters are just another form of telemarketer. I remember a good one or two back in the 1980s, but if they still exist they're well hidden. Fortunately, I've been around so long I have no need for such foolishness-- I know enough people now if I were to need it, I can find out about good jobs via word of mouth or personal email. Certainly any place that only wants fresh grads is going to be a place only an actual fresh grad would ever want to work, and even then only long enough to build up a resume.
The companies I'm familiar with have resorted to only hiring the fresh-out-of-college, often at job fairs targeted at new college grads. This is because 1) they're cheaper and 2) you can abuse them and they won't know the difference. This is, essentially, policy at some companies. And the corporate offices of these are often in red states that don't have any kind of rules against it. Combine that with management who thinks periodic cheerleading meetings where everything is couched in sports metaphors is the way to motivate people, and you realize that except for the communications technology, business operations sophistication and product quality has devolved to the level that hasn't been common since about 1920.
Burma Shave?
That comment dates you to about 70 years old...
No, but we're talking about a government that thinks the military can solve its problems-- logic is not their strong suit.
It seems to me it shouldn't be considered "commercial use" until you've made enough money at it to interest the IRS.
They don't like ANYTHING they can't control, and especially anything that can fly into secure government areas and take pictures.
Also, that could be what he'll be charged with if he tries to leave-- aiding and abetting Snowden.
From where he is now, he got Snowden into Russian asylum safely. I'd hardly consider that irrelevant.
Yes, LARGE industries are doing well. It's the small ones that are getting trashed.
No it won't, things are moving north/south at the faults for the most part. It IS becoming a dust bowl though, and many costal properties are at risk from sea level rise. But "fall into the ocean" on an earthquake, not hardly.
No, it's not anti-business, it's anti-certain-types-of-business. And "small" business appears to be one of those types. But that's happening pretty much everywhere, not at all unique to California.
I don't wear a watch. Last watch I bought was at least 15 years ago and it lasted 2 days. I'm hard on watches. They get bashed into things routinely. I'll buy a smartwatch as soon as someone posts a youtube video subjecting one to a point-blank diacharge of a 44 magnum at it, and it survives.
I don't see a lot of difference between the NSA and FCC, and in fact, I suspect the NSA is in favor of net neutrality so that their collection traffic doesn't get choked off by someone's ISP unless they tag it somehow so the ISPs all know who's data it is, which I'm sure the NSA would prefer not to advertise.
I don't get cruise sales calls -- I get calls for carpet cleaning, construction contracting, phony IRS agents, and phony credit agencies. I suspect many are calling from foreign countries. They obviously aren't deterred one whit by US laws or agencies. I just use a box to screen everything unless it's on a whitelist. And blacklisted calls get a disconnected number signal. For the most part, problem solved but I can see from the call logs who's tried and what scam they are pulling by googling the number. What I wonder is, why haven't we seen a massive bust of robocall scammers by the FBI? A couple of reasons-- one, they're not in the US, two, they're paying for the call, so the phone company is making money off them, and three, rich people are mostly unaffected by and/or oblivious of the problem.
I claim my First Amendment rights include the right to speak in unbreakable code. And as far as anyone else is concerned, it may just be pure gibberish. It's up to me to decide what it means. I could even do this verbally, by reciting words that are translated to other words using a one-time pad. And if spending money is considered protected speech, speaking in unbreakable code must be as well. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says the speech has to be intelligible, by the Government or anyone else.
If you thought it was hard to convice a girlfriend to pose for naked photos before, this asshole just made it impossible.
So, the neutrality debate is about network providers adjusting performance for different types of content. It seems to me, far more important question than if they are legally allowed to do it, is WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT? A much bigger problem is the fact that they are able to tell anything at all about the content, because that means it's not secure and should be a violation of privacy. I'd prefer net neutrality failed, because we shouldn't be depending on network providers to monitor our traffic for content type, but we should fix that by making it impossible, not by legal means which clearly no longer apply to the government itself and by extension, the companies that facilitate communications. FCC net neutrality ruling doesn't fix the problem, it just lets the government PRETEND they've fixed the problem. Plus, the govenrment wants net neutrality, else how are they going to "fast lane" their surveillance program traffic without exposing it to dweebs at the ISPs?
If they don't start calling you an engineer you'll likely hit the salary ceiling before long. I'm not sure who decided that, but it seems to be the case. And of course, even if they do call you an engineer, you'll hit the ceiling soon enough, just not quite as soon...
They are the intelligence community, not our national cybersecurity consulting firm, and they only ought to be notifying the public if the risk to national security involved in leaving the vulnerability open is greater than the risk to national security involved in losing the intelligence that could be gained from it.
What you're saying is we HAVE NO national cybersecurity entity whose purpose is to protect our infrastructure from bad actors using exactly the kinds of methods and exploits we're seeing here. And given that, we have to rely on Kaspersky to do it for us. Not only is it then a good thing, it's long overdue.
So everyone should just leave their doors wide open so the cops never have to break a door down to nab a crook? Yeah, right. If the NSA can hack into our computers, the bad guys can too. The best way to improve cybersecurity is to fix all the exploitable holes they've been using. But instead of helping us to secure our systems they've left them vulnerable because they're too lazy to pound the pavement, get individual warrants and plant bugs. Having every computer system in the world remain vulnerable made their job easier, so they chose that route, which also made the bad guys efforts easier too. But hey, it's job security, eh?
So, your manager asks for it, tells you we need it. You provide him the above explanation and his eyes glaze over. He clearly either doesn't understand your explanation or doesn't care. He repeats his original statement-- I want it, we need it. You go around that way a few times and get nowhere. What do you do?
I suppose you could look for another job.
So when that happened to me, pretty much just like that, what I did was use a hash on the passwords (SHA-256 IIRC, it was a long time ago), then asymmetrically encrypt/decrypt the resultant hash with hardcoded keys just so they could say they secured their passwords with asymmetrical encryption. And customers are very unlikely to know the difference (or at least, ours were), so there was no real risk if the sales force blabbed about it like that as if it were a useful feature. When management gets a security buzzword stuck in their heads and they think they want it and can't or won't be convinced it's not the solution they think it is, you give it to to them if you want to keep your job regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. Some developers won't even bother to find out what the right solution is, or have the luxury to actually implement it. I gave them what they needed, then bolted what they wanted on top as window dressing. And management will never read my comments on that code, which explain exactly what happened.
Why would you use it? Because someone in management read some unrelated article about security somewhere that said it was necessary for security and if you don't use it in your implementation you're not doing it right. Or someone in sales had a customer ask if our product uses it for security so now whether or not it makes any sense you have to figure out how to make use of it because management won't take "that's complete nonsense and it's useless in that context" for an answer.
I've been doing it for 35 years and only once was I asked to do anything with encryption. The funny thing is, what I was asked to do made no sense whatsoever, and would be completely ineffective towards their security goal, essentially demanding I use an encryption standard that was for a completely different job-- I was to essentially use a screwdriver to hammer nails. I was unable to convince them otherwise, so I decided to use the right tool to do the job, then bolted the bogus screwdriver on top so they also got what they thought they wanted. I didn't need to do that but I just couldn't see going through some useless security ritual without actually providing any security. They got what they needed only because I cared enough to spend the extra time to give it to them. The thing to realize is management is often incompetent as well, especially when they think they know something about a technical solution merely because an ignorant customer asked them, "does it do ?" I hoped they wouldn't advertise what they thought they were doing because any customer who knew the subject would recognize it as bogus voodoo.
Good security is hard. VERY HARD. The government is often bad at it. Sony is bad at it. Banks are bad at it. In fact, I can't point to anyone who's known to be good at it except maybe Zimmerman, and I don't even know that for sure. And users don't like it and will often bypass or otherwise subvert it themselves. But it's not because engineers are incompetent. Often they're not even asked to provide security and it isn't even on their radar. And sometimes when they are asked to provide security they are saddled with bogus requirements for how it should be done. Good security affects the user interface and the users behavior, and that's an area that companies prefer to stay out of because it's unpopular, at odds with productivity, and isn't readily seen to contribute to their bottom line.
Except the Democrats shifted RIGHT. Remember when unions actually made some difference? I do. Did the Democrats do anything to fight the "giant sucking sound" of jobs being outsourced? Remember who signed NAFTA?
Are you kidding? In the '70s we still had unions. Both the Republicans and Democrats moved to outsource labor which has now mostly neutered the unions. The "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot talked about came to pass. And since then wages have stagnated except for those at the top.