The difference between some guy showing up at the door with "Pizza delivery for the CEO" and placing a mole at the cleaning company. The "simple" stuff should be easily caught. Very few companies vet all the employees of all the subcontractors. But getting a human planted on-site would be a form of social engineering. Just more "sophisticated" than someone walking in off the street with no additional substantiation (other than a pizza and a Dominos hat).
If there exists no power on the planet, I have more to worry about than the steel factory in Germany. Also, many of the functions can't be done mechanically (at least not practically). I'm not steel worker, but the small exposure I have had with it, they don't use mechancial thermometers. That's impractical, so they use electronic temperature sensors. And so many other things. So, kill the power to a plant, and you do "massive damage" regardless of what you do to the software.
Remember, Nuclear plants are designed such that 12 hours without power will cause a meltdown. You don't need software if there exists a simple mechanical cause to all problems. Kill the power and watch them fry. I expect that would work in a steel plant too.
It was never P2P, despite assertions to the contrary (it always used a supernode, but could make the supernode be within one of the call members, back in V 1.0). It also doesn't work over IPv6. If you don't have a V4 stack loaded locally, the application will crash, even if you have V4/V6 NAX/XLAT that would connect you to the V4 server. It's deliberately engineered to break V6, by MS, who is pushing Lync and trying to keep "free Skype" from being the go-to communications platform. They can't monetize it. IPv6 is pretty basic, as is the P2P functionality promised in V1.0.
BTW, I would not say that real-time audio translation is a solved problem. It only works for a handful of well-resourced languages in restricted domains, where S2T and MT (and to a lesser extent T2S) work reasonably well.
So you are asserting that Skype's translator works going between Navajo and Yup'ik? Because I was saying that the "solution" from Skype is no better than what was already solved. Not that everything was solved. Since you are disagreeing, you are implying I'm wrong, which would mean you are supporting the opposite, that Skype's solution is more solved than the list of pieces I named.
So social engineer someone to place a compromised single-session CD in the unsecure network. Again, you are thinking small. I can think of hundreds of ways to breach a "single session CD" security. You can't make security that can't be breached. You just hope to make it harder to get in than the value of getting in.
The pilots also made some actual pilot errors. They underestimated the response of the engines for throttle-up. The plane would never "force" a landing. Go-around is common, and would be allowed for.
In that case, the pilots were "landing" 50' below ground (as they were executing an actual failed approach at ground level, and aborting the landing too late), 50' below ground because they didn't account for the trees. They should have simulated landing 50' above, not below ground, but that wouldn't have been as cool. They didn't strike the ground first, they struck the trees. Had they had a full runway of space to work with, they'd have been fine. The pilots guessed what would have happened, and guessed wrong. Crash.
From TX, lived in Alaska for 10 years. Now living outside the US. The Teabaggers were some of the "pioneers", as you noted, Palin was a founding influencer. The people in TX and Alaska that "started" the movement wanted to push religion and call it "small government".
The teabaggers started out long before the bailouts. Maybe the group changed a lot at that point, but that's about when I left the US, so I only get the MSM version of things anymore.
What people fail to account for is someone willing to spend $1B to break a $1M machine. This type of insanity is ignored. But, if someone did want to break your toy, you couldn't stop them.
Step 1, they buy your $1M machine (duplicate from the manufacturer). They use it. They find the USB port. They determine the exact signature sent by it.
Step 2. They make USB drives with firmware that looks for that signature and sends different drivers if detected. So the USB drive will serve good drivers and work properly when put in a computer to load the files on. But when you put it in the industrial machine, it will not share the files, but serve up the custom-buit virus.
Step 3. Go to the plant you want to break as a visitor. Drop 10 of the USB drives (all in different colors, styles and sizes, so nobody thinks they are 10 of the same thing). Someone will grab one from the Lost and found when needed. Drop a few in the parking lot. If you are really spending $1B, then sell them too them at a good deal, as anyone using USB for a critical function will be buying USB drives often. Sell them in the stores near where the workers live.
Then wait. Someone will plug you trojan horse into the right gear eventually. Unless they manufacture their own USB drives, they will be vulnerable to this attack.
Security only exists to deter. It can never be both secure and usable.
Sure. But software shouldn't be able to make hardware damage itself.
So you want the third rule of robotics above the first two?
Seriously, you should work at Airbus, but not Boeing. One of the fundamental differences between the companies is the order of the Three Laws (specifically #2 and #3). Airbus will guess what the pilot wants, then give it in a controlled manner. Boeing will let a pilot shake the controls until he damages the plane.
We have software that lets the hardware damage itself, when it's trivial to do otherwise. And that's accepted in a higher-safety environment than a steel plant. So you are making assertions without proper foundation.
Moreover, if they do exist they should be wholly insulated from the Internet and the baleful influence of "social networks" and the people who use them.
And even if they are, they are still vulnerable. Air gap doesn't work. Security through obscurity does. Especially when "obscurity" means "renders unusable".
Regardless, I didn't see a statement that the study duration was entirely after the yellows met the federal minimums. One may presume that based on wording, but it doesn't seem to be plainly stated.
So, your argument is essentially, "because one police department was derelict in their duties and got away with it, we should force *all* police departments to be derelict in their duties."
Yes. Like all cops are bad cops. 1% of the cops are dirty, and 99% of the cops are bad cops for covering up for them. Note when the police sued in court for the right to never enforce the law, other departments came to stand with them, not against them. That makes *all* cops culpable.
And if everyone used these stations, the state of the batteries wouldn't matter. You'd get a better one one time, and a worse one the next, then back to a better one. The range may varry 5% or so, but more than that and the cost of the charge would cover replacing the bad cells. People get more variability than that now with fuels, but don't care or pay attention because range and usage statistics are so poor for gasoline cars.
Personally, when I ran the numbers on these, they should be charging people a time fee. If you come in once a year for a battery refresh, then you get charged more than the person that fills-up every day.
When my reality doesn't match yours. I'll take the one I experienced, over the assertions by someone I never met. And I'd expect no different from you.
Studies have shown that pretending to have an emotion end up in having the emotion. This is used where people are given an exercise to argue the "pro" side of a topic they are on the "con" side of, or vice versa. The people end up liking the side they said they didn't like. Saying something enough, makes it true in the mind of the speaker. Emotions are behavioral justifications, people seem to think they precede the action, but studies show that they don't necessarily.
Also, the memory of them is maliable. You can hate killing someone in combat your first time, but 1000 kills later, look back at your first kill fondly, believing you liked it at the time. That's also true for watching movies, or other more mundane things.
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly?
Because at the end of the day, they vote together in 99% of the elections (excepting the few where both sides field a candidate). They are internally divided, but 100% unified when the question is, "will you vote for Nancy Pelosi, or her opponent, who is a marmoset dressed in drag". They'll vote against the Democrats every time, no matter what.
In the question of far-right Republicans and off-the-charts-right Republicans, it doesn't matter. Alien Vs Predator's tag line comes to mind. Whoever wins, we lose.
Reading the examples in your link, they look to be Teabaggers vs Republicans. The Teabaggers are more conservative than the Republicans. So the fighting doesn't matter. Where are the liberal Republicans? The small government Republicans don't have a voice in the fight.
Or are you one of the ones that thinks the Teabaggers are small-government Republicans? I've been to meetings, they are pro-religion Republicans looking to impose religious worship on us all. The reason the country is failing is that women can have abortions, whites can marry blacks, and taxes can buy something other than guns. Higher taxes for more guns is a good thing, to the Teabaggers I've met. They don't want a smaller government. They just want everyone on welfare to be dead (and by everyone, I think they really mean the blacks, as there are more whites on welfare than blacks, but that never is brought up).
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Party and attended Teabagger meetings (back when they actually called themselves teabaggers, and so long as they claim they never did, I'll never stop using it), but on Slashdot I'm continually told that I don't "understand" them. Often by people who have never been to the actual meetings where people stand up and say stupid racist stuff, to a cheer of people.
Oh, and I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. And didn't vote for Clinton or Obama (though I never voted for a Bush either).
Is that an official policy? Cops are brainwashed. All harm they see they are told "drugs caused this" regardless of cause. And so they "want" to stop drugs. Drugs didn't cause it though, that distincton goes to 20+ year old economic policy, and 200+ years of racism in the courts. There were two lynchings this year, both quickly ruled suicides, with evidence destroyed before independent investigators could examine the evidence. Both were black men hanged for dating white women. Why aren't the police investigating/enforcing the laws in those cases? Oh yeah, the Chief knows that enforcing an anti-lynching law against a white person will cause race riots, so the black man beat himself up, rolled in an ant hill and leaped up into a noose with no step stool, obviously suicide.
"Discretion" is one thing. Completely ignoring their job requirements and the mandate of their bosses and the public (who in Nebraska, still want marijuana to be illegal) is something else entirely.
Are you familiar with the cases the police used to get "discretion" essentially coded into law?
The example I heard is where a woman had a restraining order out against an ex. He threatened her life, "I'm coming to kill you tonight at 7" kind of specific threat. She called the police and told them that he violated his restraining order by making the threat. He made the threat. He was arrestable at that point. She gave his last known address. She gave the time and place of her death. The police went out hours after her death, on the call of a neighbor. He showed up at the appointed time and killed her.
The Police discretion was used to ignore a whiney bitch who probably deserved what she got. If you think that not arresting someone for violating a restraining order, not going out on a call for help, and letting people die is not "completely ignoring their job requirements" I'd like to know what is.
On a more personal level, my uncle (rich white guy, elected judge in IL) was pulled over at least 10 times for DUI between #2 and #3 because he'd be let off every time by the police, knowing that a felony conviction would end his career. They finally gave him #3 when he crashed his wifes car, stumbled home, and got into his car and drove back to see how bad it was. There was a crowd of civilians around the crash site, as well as the officers that recognized his wife's car and his car as he drove back, and with all the civilian witnesses, decided it was finally time to arrest him for #3.
Police have long fought to never enforce a law they don't want to, and to get to enforce knowingly bad laws. They almost always win.
"I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.
But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.
So fiat makes bitcoin unstable. That doesn't change the fact that it is an unstable currency that's worse than fiat. Commodity currency is backed by goods. Fiat currency is backed by a government. Bitcoin is backed by nothing. And its unstable value reflects that.
That's a solved problem. I've used speech to text, text to speech and translate to do the same thing. Rolling it into a popular program is the "new" thing. But there are some very basic things it can't do that should be higher on the list than solving an already solved problem.
Skype was never P2P, it was always connected through a central server. And the voice to text was always there, and will likely be how the NSA spies, as it's easier to search a transcript for "shiny bomb" than searching unindexed audio for the same thing.
The "new" thing here is reading the transcript real-time (well, real, after the translation is done).Voice to text is solved (not perfect). Translation is solved (not perfect), text to voice is solved (not perfect). This may be the first one to tie them all together, but doesn't break new ground.
Call me when Skype supports P2P connections, or IPv6.
DOMA was passing a law to invalidate the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause. The pro-constitution small government Republicans passed more laws to cause more bureaucracy to invalidate the Constitution, doing the opposite of what they say they are. Yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between some guy showing up at the door with "Pizza delivery for the CEO" and placing a mole at the cleaning company. The "simple" stuff should be easily caught. Very few companies vet all the employees of all the subcontractors. But getting a human planted on-site would be a form of social engineering. Just more "sophisticated" than someone walking in off the street with no additional substantiation (other than a pizza and a Dominos hat).
If there exists no power on the planet, I have more to worry about than the steel factory in Germany. Also, many of the functions can't be done mechanically (at least not practically). I'm not steel worker, but the small exposure I have had with it, they don't use mechancial thermometers. That's impractical, so they use electronic temperature sensors. And so many other things. So, kill the power to a plant, and you do "massive damage" regardless of what you do to the software.
Remember, Nuclear plants are designed such that 12 hours without power will cause a meltdown. You don't need software if there exists a simple mechanical cause to all problems. Kill the power and watch them fry. I expect that would work in a steel plant too.
What are the "basic things it can't do"?
It was never P2P, despite assertions to the contrary (it always used a supernode, but could make the supernode be within one of the call members, back in V 1.0). It also doesn't work over IPv6. If you don't have a V4 stack loaded locally, the application will crash, even if you have V4/V6 NAX/XLAT that would connect you to the V4 server. It's deliberately engineered to break V6, by MS, who is pushing Lync and trying to keep "free Skype" from being the go-to communications platform. They can't monetize it. IPv6 is pretty basic, as is the P2P functionality promised in V1.0.
BTW, I would not say that real-time audio translation is a solved problem. It only works for a handful of well-resourced languages in restricted domains, where S2T and MT (and to a lesser extent T2S) work reasonably well.
So you are asserting that Skype's translator works going between Navajo and Yup'ik? Because I was saying that the "solution" from Skype is no better than what was already solved. Not that everything was solved. Since you are disagreeing, you are implying I'm wrong, which would mean you are supporting the opposite, that Skype's solution is more solved than the list of pieces I named.
So social engineer someone to place a compromised single-session CD in the unsecure network. Again, you are thinking small. I can think of hundreds of ways to breach a "single session CD" security. You can't make security that can't be breached. You just hope to make it harder to get in than the value of getting in.
The pilots also made some actual pilot errors. They underestimated the response of the engines for throttle-up. The plane would never "force" a landing. Go-around is common, and would be allowed for.
In that case, the pilots were "landing" 50' below ground (as they were executing an actual failed approach at ground level, and aborting the landing too late), 50' below ground because they didn't account for the trees. They should have simulated landing 50' above, not below ground, but that wouldn't have been as cool. They didn't strike the ground first, they struck the trees. Had they had a full runway of space to work with, they'd have been fine. The pilots guessed what would have happened, and guessed wrong. Crash.
From TX, lived in Alaska for 10 years. Now living outside the US. The Teabaggers were some of the "pioneers", as you noted, Palin was a founding influencer. The people in TX and Alaska that "started" the movement wanted to push religion and call it "small government".
The teabaggers started out long before the bailouts. Maybe the group changed a lot at that point, but that's about when I left the US, so I only get the MSM version of things anymore.
What people fail to account for is someone willing to spend $1B to break a $1M machine. This type of insanity is ignored. But, if someone did want to break your toy, you couldn't stop them.
Step 1, they buy your $1M machine (duplicate from the manufacturer). They use it. They find the USB port. They determine the exact signature sent by it.
Step 2. They make USB drives with firmware that looks for that signature and sends different drivers if detected. So the USB drive will serve good drivers and work properly when put in a computer to load the files on. But when you put it in the industrial machine, it will not share the files, but serve up the custom-buit virus.
Step 3. Go to the plant you want to break as a visitor. Drop 10 of the USB drives (all in different colors, styles and sizes, so nobody thinks they are 10 of the same thing). Someone will grab one from the Lost and found when needed. Drop a few in the parking lot. If you are really spending $1B, then sell them too them at a good deal, as anyone using USB for a critical function will be buying USB drives often. Sell them in the stores near where the workers live.
Then wait. Someone will plug you trojan horse into the right gear eventually. Unless they manufacture their own USB drives, they will be vulnerable to this attack.
Security only exists to deter. It can never be both secure and usable.
Sure. But software shouldn't be able to make hardware damage itself.
So you want the third rule of robotics above the first two?
Seriously, you should work at Airbus, but not Boeing. One of the fundamental differences between the companies is the order of the Three Laws (specifically #2 and #3). Airbus will guess what the pilot wants, then give it in a controlled manner. Boeing will let a pilot shake the controls until he damages the plane.
We have software that lets the hardware damage itself, when it's trivial to do otherwise. And that's accepted in a higher-safety environment than a steel plant. So you are making assertions without proper foundation.
Moreover, if they do exist they should be wholly insulated from the Internet and the baleful influence of "social networks" and the people who use them.
And even if they are, they are still vulnerable. Air gap doesn't work. Security through obscurity does. Especially when "obscurity" means "renders unusable".
You use your degree to build things? What, did you go to Lego University?
Regardless, I didn't see a statement that the study duration was entirely after the yellows met the federal minimums. One may presume that based on wording, but it doesn't seem to be plainly stated.
So, your argument is essentially, "because one police department was derelict in their duties and got away with it, we should force *all* police departments to be derelict in their duties."
Yes. Like all cops are bad cops. 1% of the cops are dirty, and 99% of the cops are bad cops for covering up for them. Note when the police sued in court for the right to never enforce the law, other departments came to stand with them, not against them. That makes *all* cops culpable.
And if everyone used these stations, the state of the batteries wouldn't matter. You'd get a better one one time, and a worse one the next, then back to a better one. The range may varry 5% or so, but more than that and the cost of the charge would cover replacing the bad cells. People get more variability than that now with fuels, but don't care or pay attention because range and usage statistics are so poor for gasoline cars.
Personally, when I ran the numbers on these, they should be charging people a time fee. If you come in once a year for a battery refresh, then you get charged more than the person that fills-up every day.
When my reality doesn't match yours. I'll take the one I experienced, over the assertions by someone I never met. And I'd expect no different from you.
Studies have shown that pretending to have an emotion end up in having the emotion. This is used where people are given an exercise to argue the "pro" side of a topic they are on the "con" side of, or vice versa. The people end up liking the side they said they didn't like. Saying something enough, makes it true in the mind of the speaker. Emotions are behavioral justifications, people seem to think they precede the action, but studies show that they don't necessarily.
Also, the memory of them is maliable. You can hate killing someone in combat your first time, but 1000 kills later, look back at your first kill fondly, believing you liked it at the time. That's also true for watching movies, or other more mundane things.
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly?
Because at the end of the day, they vote together in 99% of the elections (excepting the few where both sides field a candidate). They are internally divided, but 100% unified when the question is, "will you vote for Nancy Pelosi, or her opponent, who is a marmoset dressed in drag". They'll vote against the Democrats every time, no matter what.
In the question of far-right Republicans and off-the-charts-right Republicans, it doesn't matter. Alien Vs Predator's tag line comes to mind. Whoever wins, we lose.
Reading the examples in your link, they look to be Teabaggers vs Republicans. The Teabaggers are more conservative than the Republicans. So the fighting doesn't matter. Where are the liberal Republicans? The small government Republicans don't have a voice in the fight.
Or are you one of the ones that thinks the Teabaggers are small-government Republicans? I've been to meetings, they are pro-religion Republicans looking to impose religious worship on us all. The reason the country is failing is that women can have abortions, whites can marry blacks, and taxes can buy something other than guns. Higher taxes for more guns is a good thing, to the Teabaggers I've met. They don't want a smaller government. They just want everyone on welfare to be dead (and by everyone, I think they really mean the blacks, as there are more whites on welfare than blacks, but that never is brought up).
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Party and attended Teabagger meetings (back when they actually called themselves teabaggers, and so long as they claim they never did, I'll never stop using it), but on Slashdot I'm continually told that I don't "understand" them. Often by people who have never been to the actual meetings where people stand up and say stupid racist stuff, to a cheer of people.
Oh, and I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. And didn't vote for Clinton or Obama (though I never voted for a Bush either).
Is that an official policy? Cops are brainwashed. All harm they see they are told "drugs caused this" regardless of cause. And so they "want" to stop drugs. Drugs didn't cause it though, that distincton goes to 20+ year old economic policy, and 200+ years of racism in the courts. There were two lynchings this year, both quickly ruled suicides, with evidence destroyed before independent investigators could examine the evidence. Both were black men hanged for dating white women. Why aren't the police investigating/enforcing the laws in those cases? Oh yeah, the Chief knows that enforcing an anti-lynching law against a white person will cause race riots, so the black man beat himself up, rolled in an ant hill and leaped up into a noose with no step stool, obviously suicide.
"Discretion" is one thing. Completely ignoring their job requirements and the mandate of their bosses and the public (who in Nebraska, still want marijuana to be illegal) is something else entirely.
Are you familiar with the cases the police used to get "discretion" essentially coded into law?
The example I heard is where a woman had a restraining order out against an ex. He threatened her life, "I'm coming to kill you tonight at 7" kind of specific threat. She called the police and told them that he violated his restraining order by making the threat. He made the threat. He was arrestable at that point. She gave his last known address. She gave the time and place of her death. The police went out hours after her death, on the call of a neighbor. He showed up at the appointed time and killed her.
The Police discretion was used to ignore a whiney bitch who probably deserved what she got. If you think that not arresting someone for violating a restraining order, not going out on a call for help, and letting people die is not "completely ignoring their job requirements" I'd like to know what is.
On a more personal level, my uncle (rich white guy, elected judge in IL) was pulled over at least 10 times for DUI between #2 and #3 because he'd be let off every time by the police, knowing that a felony conviction would end his career. They finally gave him #3 when he crashed his wifes car, stumbled home, and got into his car and drove back to see how bad it was. There was a crowd of civilians around the crash site, as well as the officers that recognized his wife's car and his car as he drove back, and with all the civilian witnesses, decided it was finally time to arrest him for #3.
Police have long fought to never enforce a law they don't want to, and to get to enforce knowingly bad laws. They almost always win.
"I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.
But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.
That reads like an Onion of a movie plot. Or the makers of Footloose read that and thought "Kevin Bacon would make a great Mike Niblett."
So fiat makes bitcoin unstable. That doesn't change the fact that it is an unstable currency that's worse than fiat. Commodity currency is backed by goods. Fiat currency is backed by a government. Bitcoin is backed by nothing. And its unstable value reflects that.
That's a solved problem. I've used speech to text, text to speech and translate to do the same thing. Rolling it into a popular program is the "new" thing. But there are some very basic things it can't do that should be higher on the list than solving an already solved problem.
Skype was never P2P, it was always connected through a central server. And the voice to text was always there, and will likely be how the NSA spies, as it's easier to search a transcript for "shiny bomb" than searching unindexed audio for the same thing.
The "new" thing here is reading the transcript real-time (well, real, after the translation is done).Voice to text is solved (not perfect). Translation is solved (not perfect), text to voice is solved (not perfect). This may be the first one to tie them all together, but doesn't break new ground.
Call me when Skype supports P2P connections, or IPv6.
It's a reverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector that does it.
DOMA was passing a law to invalidate the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause. The pro-constitution small government Republicans passed more laws to cause more bureaucracy to invalidate the Constitution, doing the opposite of what they say they are. Yet again.