Ignoring the "more stuff would break", this wouldn't help either, as not every day is that 0.000..001% longer. Rotation of the earth is much more irregular than precision timekeeping stuff.
Choose your timescale wisely. Use UTC where it's important that "time" matches some random astronomic phenomenas, and use TAI where consistency matters.
Of course solar only won't work without that ridicliously amount of buffering, but combined with * wind power, * a huge production area with diverse enough weather conditions (Europe, plans to include Africa), * a well connected multi-national electricity grid that levels out supply and demand between differnt countries and is in place for decades already, * coordination of already existing (and growing) buffering capacities (everything that needs to be "charged", "cooled" or "heated" already offers limited energy storage), * actual demand shaping, * increasing energy efficiency, * covering usage peaks and with locally installed power generators (like what Lichtblick tried) it should reduce the missing buffering capacity to something that can be handled.
Assume each of the above measures shaving just 5-10% of the peak load, add the ca. 25% of overall electricity already produced by renewable energy (keep in mind that these numbers are for Jan/Feb. Solar prodiction is at its lowest) and IMHO we're on our way to get something working.
Just don't expect one single technology to provide 100%.
Yes. But it's not only judge and jury. Friends, Neighbours, employers, media..... to all of them you will stay the guy who never got convicted for the murder of his wife, if the guilty party can't be found.
I think the point was that Norse Security looked at this as if it was a criminal investigation as opposed to a political finger pointing match. If the police were investigating a crime and found that an ex-employee had posted angry statements about being fired prior to the crime being committed (Motive) and had the means and opportunity to do so, they would definitely be investigated as a suspect. Rightfully so, too.
Absolutely right. But let's think this through to the end. So, if I ever get laid off I would a) not have the right to be "disgruntled" unless b) I make sure I'll be surrounded by a potential witness just in case I'm investigated and need to produce an alibi for any time an attack on my ex-employer might have happend.
As you said, If I can't do that I wouldn't be dropped from the list of suspects unless "the investigation showed that the person had a good alibi or uncovered evidence that pointed away from that person,"
And there isn't a guarantee that there will be evidence at all that points to the true perpetrator. (and if you're single and umeployed, NOT having an alibi for most of your day is the norm).
So while you're still absolutely right, only in an ideal world this would be enough to avoid additional hard times to laid of employees.
Read the headline. It's obviously enough to be "identified [...] as perpetrator". I know, I'm not a native english speaker, but doesn't that imply at least some level of guilt? The missed subtlety that the public misses is if he is found guilty by a scandinavian antivirus-company or by judge and jury. So if the name of that suspect leaks somehow (which is more than likely), he will be guilty in the eyes of the public. Including future potential employers.
Way to easy to have your life ruined without being guilty.
Even if the full SWAT team is a rather rare, it's not unheard of. And those people who will sit down and politely ask some questions still probably may well arrive in police cars parked in front of my house. May be enough to have to look for a new neighbourhood to move to.
But even that isn't more as an unlikely nuissance. Your name will most likely leak somewhere and each and every script kiddie that couldn't log into PSN on Christmas (not related, I know. but they don't) will start to DDOS my current business, swamp my social networks with photoshopped pics of me beating my wife and pull every prank in the book. Nothing out of the "prank" range, but may get boring after being on the receiveing end of the 500th or so.
Unfortunately, we're at a point where sometimes being a suspect is already part of the punishment.
Now being skilled and being laid of automatically makes you a crime suspect for having "means and motive".
For uns in IT business, we wouldn't be hired if we wouldn't have the knowledge that could also be used for blackhat purposes, and being laid of during a restructering is usually nothing an individual can control.
The solution is not to pretend that bad things don't happen. It's for our society to grow up and learn to accept that they do, and learn to take care of one another. If your daughter dies next year, at the end of the year, will you pretend it didn't happen? Someone with a happier year would have a happier year in review.
Yes. But as I already said above, this is exactly why not the review is the problem. It's the thoughtless "See the review of your fantastic year" line. A "Do you want us to create a year review at all" question would be a way to ask if somone had a happy year. A "rate your year" would even be better.
I agree with you that the "It was a great year" line was going way to far.
On the other hand, compiling a slideshow of uploaded pics is ok, because viewing them and have them bring back memories is what photos usually are for. Until everyone started to post their food as before and after pictures, you'd take pictures of those special moments you want to remember. So bringing them up in a year review is completly legit.
And if someone beloved died, that's part of that year, too. But this is where the picture-pick-algorithm ends. Slapping a thoughtless "oh what a great year it was" just because market research says that it fits the happy-holidays-mood is stupid and thoughtless. And it somehow shows that even the guys at facebook have lost of what they're actually doing. Half of them is seing their service from the single-average-user-viewpoint, and the other half only sees their data as a source of targeted -advertising data. No one ever thought how many users will see the assumption that they had a fantastic year. And it's a bit of common sense that with millions of facebook users, not everyone possibly could have had a fantastic year.
a) They shouldn't have overdone the surveillance to an extent that made it neccessary to have a Snowden to restore protection of those who the three letter agencies are supposed to protect and
b) this is based on the fallacy that before Snowden, criminals did not know about the surveillance protocols. Well, obviously, SOME didn't know. But those criminals who managed to bribe or blackmail a someone on a Snowden-like position into sharing their Snowden-like knowledge wre never monitored by the GHCQ.
OK, so according to that so called "newspaper" (I read TFA there yesterday) 50% of dangerous items were not recognized during security screening. But even with this terrible performance, no related incidents have been reported. In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
Telecom providers are required to make sure that any voice service they sell is compliant with CALEA
In that case, CALEA would effectively render end-to-end encryption illegal. So, IMHO, they should be hunted down by lawyers for either not complying with CELEA or for not offering what they advertise.
And remember that CALEA is not about mass wireless surveillance a la NSA but is actually about targeted recordings of specific individuals where there is probable cause enough to get a judge to sign off on the wiretap order. Very different things.
Indeed. But there's nothing that keeps the NSA from using the same interface, too. either by serving wiretap orders themselfs (decorated with a nice gag order) or by targetting the CELEA equipment.
What the heck would you need to impelemt scoring and risk assesment for a simple money transfer? That is what you have the trusted 3rd party for.
If I (Alice) want to transfer money to Bob, I instruct my bank to remove the sum from my account. (That's the step that needs to be authenticated, but not assessed by any credit score). Then my bank transfers that to the target bank. (I doubt credit score would help to safeguard that step and it should NOT be over public networks - if you can do an IP check at this step, something went wrong from the design phase)
And as a last step, they give the money to Bob (or his account) and I don't think either that for that it is neccessary or even helping, to check Bobs credit score or IP address. He is going to RECEIVE money.
Yes, things get a bit more complicated if you need Bob's small shop to trigger the money transaction from his customer Alice, but then again we don't need any checks of his credit history or his current dynamic IP address, but rather we need to check Alice's authentication.
Thus far, the most popular way for companies to circumvent this pressure is to try and design encryption systems where they (the corporation) do not hold the ability to decrypt user data.
At that point, law enforcement can ask all they want, legally or otherwise.
The grey bearded nerds here may still remember the legend of yore about a company called lavabit and how they tried exactly that....
Well, at least according to the summary, he never spoke of "safe". He said "safest" Big difference.
And I'd even go further and say that he might be right. Unless I'd go completly offline, I can't afford half the brainpower and expertise that Google buys for their datacenter to keep my desktop machine clean and safe. (to be honest. I couldn't afford hiring a single person from their security department)
There is no easy and there is no hard, there is only the competition for the position.
He usually will be competing not agains a person, but against the possible employer company whining that they need more H1-B Visas because they can't fill the position with domestic employees.
Proving skills is pretty easy in IT, do free stuff for FOSS (free open source software) because if you efforts are good enough you can quite readily gain public recognition by the people you most want to impress. So demonstrate skill by picking the most appropriate FOSS project and then start doing the hard grind to demonstrate your skills, not only will you practise you skills amongst peers who will help and instruct you but you will get to know the right people who will help you get a job or even employ you.
Uhm yes. Hans Reiser showed that first you do FOSS development, and THEN commit a felony... OK, bad jokes aside, his problem will be to find time between the three burger flipping jobs he has to to, to actually do something meaningful for any FOSS project.
I agree with the problem that Lawrence_bird noticed: a state deciding to NOT take all of your money is not exactly giving a "tax break"
But there is another problem: You don't need countries to actually GIVE a tax break: Unfair tax advantages might be created by simple differences between tax systems that are fair and balanced within themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the "more stuff would break", this wouldn't help either, as not every day is that 0.000..001% longer. Rotation of the earth is much more irregular than precision timekeeping stuff.
Choose your timescale wisely. Use UTC where it's important that "time" matches some random astronomic phenomenas, and use TAI where consistency matters.
Get back to us when you have renewable energy that works.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
Of course solar only won't work without that ridicliously amount of buffering, but combined with
* wind power,
* a huge production area with diverse enough weather conditions (Europe, plans to include Africa),
* a well connected multi-national electricity grid that levels out supply and demand between differnt countries and is in place for decades already,
* coordination of already existing (and growing) buffering capacities (everything that needs to be "charged", "cooled" or "heated" already offers limited energy storage),
* actual demand shaping,
* increasing energy efficiency,
* covering usage peaks and with locally installed power generators (like what Lichtblick tried)
it should reduce the missing buffering capacity to something that can be handled.
Assume each of the above measures shaving just 5-10% of the peak load, add the ca. 25% of overall electricity already produced by renewable energy (keep in mind that these numbers are for Jan/Feb. Solar prodiction is at its lowest) and IMHO we're on our way to get something working.
Just don't expect one single technology to provide 100%.
Yes. But it's not only judge and jury. Friends, Neighbours, employers, media..... to all of them you will stay the guy who never got convicted for the murder of his wife, if the guilty party can't be found.
I think the point was that Norse Security looked at this as if it was a criminal investigation as opposed to a political finger pointing match. If the police were investigating a crime and found that an ex-employee had posted angry statements about being fired prior to the crime being committed (Motive) and had the means and opportunity to do so, they would definitely be investigated as a suspect. Rightfully so, too.
Absolutely right. But let's think this through to the end. So, if I ever get laid off I would
a) not have the right to be "disgruntled" unless
b) I make sure I'll be surrounded by a potential witness just in case I'm investigated and need to produce an alibi for any time an attack on my ex-employer might have happend.
As you said, If I can't do that I wouldn't be dropped from the list of suspects unless "the investigation showed that the person had a good alibi or uncovered evidence that pointed away from that person,"
And there isn't a guarantee that there will be evidence at all that points to the true perpetrator. (and if you're single and umeployed, NOT having an alibi for most of your day is the norm).
So while you're still absolutely right, only in an ideal world this would be enough to avoid additional hard times to laid of employees.
Read the headline. It's obviously enough to be "identified [...] as perpetrator". I know, I'm not a native english speaker, but doesn't that imply at least some level of guilt? The missed subtlety that the public misses is if he is found guilty by a scandinavian antivirus-company or by judge and jury. So if the name of that suspect leaks somehow (which is more than likely), he will be guilty in the eyes of the public. Including future potential employers.
Way to easy to have your life ruined without being guilty.
Yes, but that's not how it happens in real life.
Even if the full SWAT team is a rather rare, it's not unheard of. And those people who will sit down and politely ask some questions still probably may well arrive in police cars parked in front of my house. May be enough to have to look for a new neighbourhood to move to.
But even that isn't more as an unlikely nuissance. Your name will most likely leak somewhere and each and every script kiddie that couldn't log into PSN on Christmas (not related, I know. but they don't) will start to DDOS my current business, swamp my social networks with photoshopped pics of me beating my wife and pull every prank in the book. Nothing out of the "prank" range, but may get boring after being on the receiveing end of the 500th or so.
Unfortunately, we're at a point where sometimes being a suspect is already part of the punishment.
Yes, but it shouldn't be THAT easy to produce people with those bullseyes.
"Hey, let's fire a few IT guys. Just in case we need to bring up some capeable, disgruntled ex-employees as scapegoats if we ever get hacked."
It's an effing huge diffrence if you are a suspect for something you are or do, or for something that someone else does to you.
Now being skilled and being laid of automatically makes you a crime suspect for having "means and motive".
For uns in IT business, we wouldn't be hired if we wouldn't have the knowledge that could also be used for blackhat purposes, and being laid of during a restructering is usually nothing an individual can control.
Thank you....
The solution is not to pretend that bad things don't happen. It's for our society to grow up and learn to accept that they do, and learn to take care of one another. If your daughter dies next year, at the end of the year, will you pretend it didn't happen? Someone with a happier year would have a happier year in review.
Yes. But as I already said above, this is exactly why not the review is the problem. It's the thoughtless "See the review of your fantastic year" line. A "Do you want us to create a year review at all" question would be a way to ask if somone had a happy year. A "rate your year" would even be better.
Wow... I bet that you now wish you had at least been to that party....
But yes, something went wrong when people started to use the tagging as a way to connect people to some joke-pics just as a way of sharing.
I agree with you that the "It was a great year" line was going way to far.
On the other hand, compiling a slideshow of uploaded pics is ok, because viewing them and have them bring back memories is what photos usually are for. Until everyone started to post their food as before and after pictures, you'd take pictures of those special moments you want to remember. So bringing them up in a year review is completly legit.
And if someone beloved died, that's part of that year, too. But this is where the picture-pick-algorithm ends. Slapping a thoughtless "oh what a great year it was" just because market research says that it fits the happy-holidays-mood is stupid and thoughtless. And it somehow shows that even the guys at facebook have lost of what they're actually doing. Half of them is seing their service from the single-average-user-viewpoint, and the other half only sees their data as a source of targeted -advertising data. No one ever thought how many users will see the assumption that they had a fantastic year. And it's a bit of common sense that with millions of facebook users, not everyone possibly could have had a fantastic year.
Which is what the really clever criminals did even before Snowden.
a) They shouldn't have overdone the surveillance to an extent that made it neccessary to have a Snowden to restore protection of those who the three letter agencies are supposed to protect and
b) this is based on the fallacy that before Snowden, criminals did not know about the surveillance protocols. Well, obviously, SOME didn't know. But those criminals who managed to bribe or blackmail a someone on a Snowden-like position into sharing their Snowden-like knowledge wre never monitored by the GHCQ.
That's why for Euro-pallets, there is an exchange system in place: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
OK, so according to that so called "newspaper" (I read TFA there yesterday) 50% of dangerous items were not recognized during security screening. But even with this terrible performance, no related incidents have been reported. In other words: This shows that there isn't a real danger that this security theater is protecting us from.
Let's start a war!
Winifred Ames: Why Albania?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: Why not?
Winifred Ames: What have they done to us?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them?
Winifred Ames: Nothing.
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable.
Telecom providers are required to make sure that any voice service they sell is compliant with CALEA
In that case, CALEA would effectively render end-to-end encryption illegal. So, IMHO, they should be hunted down by lawyers for either not complying with CELEA or for not offering what they advertise.
And remember that CALEA is not about mass wireless surveillance a la NSA but is actually about targeted recordings of specific individuals where there is probable cause enough to get a judge to sign off on the wiretap order. Very different things.
Indeed. But there's nothing that keeps the NSA from using the same interface, too. either by serving wiretap orders themselfs (decorated with a nice gag order) or by targetting the CELEA equipment.
Long ago for that AC to forget about it.
And in a related note: If we have to discuss if and how to avoid supporting law enforcement, something went really, really wrong.
What the heck would you need to impelemt scoring and risk assesment for a simple money transfer? That is what you have the trusted 3rd party for.
If I (Alice) want to transfer money to Bob, I instruct my bank to remove the sum from my account. (That's the step that needs to be authenticated, but not assessed by any credit score). Then my bank transfers that to the target bank. (I doubt credit score would help to safeguard that step and it should NOT be over public networks - if you can do an IP check at this step, something went wrong from the design phase)
And as a last step, they give the money to Bob (or his account) and I don't think either that for that it is neccessary or even helping, to check Bobs credit score or IP address. He is going to RECEIVE money.
Yes, things get a bit more complicated if you need Bob's small shop to trigger the money transaction from his customer Alice, but then again we don't need any checks of his credit history or his current dynamic IP address, but rather we need to check Alice's authentication.
Thus far, the most popular way for companies to circumvent this pressure is to try and design encryption systems where they (the corporation) do not hold the ability to decrypt user data.
At that point, law enforcement can ask all they want, legally or otherwise.
The grey bearded nerds here may still remember the legend of yore about a company called lavabit and how they tried exactly that....
Well, at least according to the summary, he never spoke of "safe". He said "safest" Big difference.
And I'd even go further and say that he might be right. Unless I'd go completly offline, I can't afford half the brainpower and expertise that Google buys for their datacenter to keep my desktop machine clean and safe. (to be honest. I couldn't afford hiring a single person from their security department)
Well, they came in second...
http://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
There is no easy and there is no hard, there is only the competition for the position.
He usually will be competing not agains a person, but against the possible employer company whining that they need more H1-B Visas because they can't fill the position with domestic employees.
Proving skills is pretty easy in IT, do free stuff for FOSS (free open source software) because if you efforts are good enough you can quite readily gain public recognition by the people you most want to impress. So demonstrate skill by picking the most appropriate FOSS project and then start doing the hard grind to demonstrate your skills, not only will you practise you skills amongst peers who will help and instruct you but you will get to know the right people who will help you get a job or even employ you.
Uhm yes. Hans Reiser showed that first you do FOSS development, and THEN commit a felony... OK, bad jokes aside, his problem will be to find time between the three burger flipping jobs he has to to, to actually do something meaningful for any FOSS project.
I agree with the problem that Lawrence_bird noticed: a state deciding to NOT take all of your money is not exactly giving a "tax break"
But there is another problem: You don't need countries to actually GIVE a tax break: Unfair tax advantages might be created by simple differences between tax systems that are fair and balanced within themselves.