That said when it is considered, most of the security policies I've seen are most about applying blame than actual "security".
Essentially, you've made the security restrictions so hard to use that users are all going to circumvent it. "Well then it isn't our fault, it is theirs". The simple example are ridiculous login procedures which prompt all the users to write all the details down on sticky notes and attach it to the monitors... To which they would argue that it was secure, and it is all the users fault for not following accepted procedures. To me that is not security. Security is a much larger picture that needs to be considered. I've seen all sorts of stuff written to circumvent certain security policy simply because said policy breaks everything, and makes it pretty much impossible to work within otherwise.
Also I think people are forgetting the type of position. I mean first of all it seems that 11 years of experience for that type of position is too few (heck I've been around for 17 in field, well not security but you get the idea). However perhaps she did really well, or got high regard. At any rate, as CSO, or Director, or VP, or any of those positions, it isn't like she is doing any real hands on IT work. She is a manager. In case no one has ever noticed (and I doubt that as everyone bitches about it constantly on here, including myself), most managers lack most technical experience, though some might come from that background it certainly isn't required. They are around to manage a team, department, etc... and make the final call on decision that might impact that. So in this case who knows, perhaps the whole organization is technically backwards, her team was terrible, conceivable she was never told or notified of the problems, or had institutional challenges (i.e. funding, or lack of priority, etc...). As to her retiring, well she could have been close to retirement anyway, and didn't want to put up with the incoming backlash, and regardless she was the person at the helm, and you take the fall, perhaps even when it wasn't entirely your fault. When you're the CSO and you company has the biggest privacy breach in the history of the world, at *best* you retire regardless of background, gender, or whatever.
Anyway the short version is that she is a manager, not technical staff, so judging her only on that is a bit much. Who knows, perhaps she was a horrible manager, and didn't control her department, or didn't fight hard enough for security priorities, or was responsible for bad policies or practices... But it isn't like she would have been the one that specifically messed up, though nominally responsible for as manager however, hence the "retirement".
So a couple of points. I'd say generally speaking the pay in the US is more. There are also more opportunity (though perhaps more competition as well). Tax burden is heavier in Canada for sure. I don't think the cold or the darkness really matters when trying to KEEP talent, as they would already be used to it. Trying to ATTRACT talent, well that might be a different matter. Also, another point is that most of the places where these jobs are located are also the most expensive to live in Canada, Toronto and Vancouver for example. Montreal however isn't as expensive, however some might be put off or at least a bit intimidated by living in Quebec and all the French speaking, though Montreal is totally bilingual anyway. I doubt Travel is a big deal, Canada is BIG. I live about 2000 km away from my family for example. There are plenty of families that are spread across the country.
Then there is the political climate, not to mention cultural. As much as we are good neighbors, and share a lot of commonalities, Canadians in general are a different bunch of people. I know once upon a time I had a bit of a plan in which I was going to work in Canada for about 5 years, then head south for the big bucks. It was about that time that George W Bush was elected. I decided that things were going good enough as they were. It wasn't the only reason of course, but I can't say it didn't enter my thought process. So while money certainly factors into it of course, it isn't everything. That said, at least in Canada's instance, being a bit more competitive on salary is probably one of the key factors that if address might make a big difference.
Awesome! Now they can create a car that never needs charging ever! Just install about 10,000 of those bad boys and you get about 300,000 km per change! Seeing as the car probably won't last much longer than that anyway, you can just use your car, never charge it, and then just toss it away! Perfect!
"BTC really only has value because the BTC user base has formed a consensus that it does"
You pretty much just described very succinctly every currency that exists.
Even the last part about tainted BTC's pretty much describe those currencies that go through hyper inflation due to printing of money to the point of worthlessness.
I doubt they knew about that specific breach that long ago (or that it happened that long ago), otherwise why announce it now?
It is more likely that they knew their security was a joke, and that they were very vulnerable and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened.
The worst part is that they spend millions lobbying government to limit their breach liability when they could have been spending that money on some security folks to do an audit of their systems and fix their actual problem. The fact that the former is seen as a better alternative than the later is surely a sign of what is wrong in the world...
*Ahem* I pretty much said as much previously. It's exciting to imagine a cabal of hackers doing things like this, however reality more often than not is just incompetence.
Agreed. One of the "challenges" that *democratic* governments have is anything longer than the political cycle. Large infrastructure projects, long term economic plans, and long term priorities such as things like Climate Change are very difficult for the political structure to handle. It is also compounded by the fact that political parties actively WANT the initiatives of the other parties to fail is also very counter productive. Particularly so when most elections seem to more less mirror a "tick-tock" sort of pattern of one party in power until the public grows weary of them, then another (or other), and so on and so forth. Additionally compounded by political contributions by special interest groups trying to sway the direction into whatever it is that is most favorable to them.
Outside of governments, you can see this perhaps even more pronounced in recent times with publicly traded companies with shareholders and investments etc... There used to be a day when companies took a longer view and did a lot more R&D, and didn't just see it as a line item on a ledger that reduces their profits that particular quarter. There seems to be more emphasis on maximizing sort term profits over long term profitability, in part because of the aforementioned reasons, but also likely due to the revolving door of CEO's meeting their bonus obligations prior to GTFO and leaving the mess for the next guy to deal with (which is pretty analogous to the political issues mentioned previously as well). The method du jour of progressing technology seems to be through acquisition of other companies (which is further consolidation), or just licensing someone else's ideas, or just using them anyway, then having long drawn out court battles over who is owed however many millions/billions after the fact.
I think this is something that both are going to struggle with in the future (and now) when competing with more *ahem* consolidated powers such as China and Nationalized companies in the longer term. Their goals and time horizons are just so much greater. Don't really have any answers, but just pointing out the challenges.
In the more (pardon pun) specific case of this article, which specifically has to do with the semiconductor industry it isn't helped by the amount of consolidation in the industry and lack of competition. I can count on my hand the number of chip designers and fabricators, and even those are segmented into pretty unique niches meaning that there is very little overlap or competition diving innovation right now. That said, this is prevalent in a lot of related sectors for example, memory, storage, etc... Even on the more mundane hardware suppliers for things like PSU, etc...
One last note on the topic is that the trend of companies business models towards anti-consumer practices isn't exactly helping innovation at all. Innovation occurs when Product A has some feature than Product B doesn't have which is desirable by the consumer, so the consumer goes with Product B, thus generating profit and further incentive to innovate new and interesting features or faster processors etc... However when the business models seem less concerned with keeping consumers happy, or engaging them with innovative products and more about locking them into a particular product, making any sort of movement to another more difficult really disincentives innovation. As why bother making something faster, or integrating something better, when you know your customers have to buy whatever it is you're selling pretty much no matter what. Again compounded by instances where the primary product isn't something that actually produces the profit by itself, but is rather a conduit for other revenue streams, printer ink, music, or apps for example.
Anyway occasionally there is some government/consumer/industry push back on all the above, however there is just as much pushing the other direction for the status quo, and typically a lot of inertia to try and overcome for any real change. Just take a look a media for example and how much they have fought tooth and nail against any sort of technical innovation within their sector in favor of trying to get the old business model going. Who knows where we would be today if they had decided to take a more proactive approach.
My favorite part of the movie was where two anonymous Storm Troopers are walking down a corridor, and they hear Darth Teenage Angst having a fit in the next room, one signals to the other, and they immediately head in a different direction...
Why I like it: 1) Even with zero dialog it is hilarious 2) Typically in the past Storm Troopers were pretty much put in the movie to die, they are just hero cannon fodder, adds some humanism to them. Probably why they just went with Robots in the prequels. 3) I like to think with the story line of the ex-Trooper hero, that this was also done intentionally as a further device to show that Storm Troopers are individuals and not just clone robots, or brain washed cannon fodder.
That said, when the ex-Trooper goes rogue for his sensibilities about killing people, he does a pretty good job of mass murdering a lot of his comrades in arms on the way out and after...
Also on an somewhat unrelated note, I thought the plot device of the Super Death Star was a bit silly and anime. I mean what can we expect in the next one? A Super Duper Death Star twice as big as the last?
I'll pay a writer 100$ if they can sneak in a line for when the hero's scan the new Super Duper Death Star, when a screen starts flashing increasing numbers beyond 9000, that says something to the effect Ray: "This Cannot Be!.... It's over 9000!" Luke: "No... no... that's not true!... that's impossible!"
First off how "good" (putting aside "ratings" for a second) a movie is has only a limited baring on how "successful" (i.e. box office earnings) a movie is.
A more likely correlation would be how much money was spent on promotion, how wide the actual release was, how many theaters it is showing in, how broad the audience is (not only in ratings such as "R", but also in content).
Ratings, word of mouth, negative press may either impact A) someones decision to not see something they had intended to see, or B) someones decision to see something they had not intended to see.
Indeed ratings can get difficult to compare apples to apples when either the numbers of contributors are really high, or really low. Generally speaking there are likely a lot of small independent films that critics might love (yet have few reviews both in critics and viewers), yet it isn't going to do the same as a big blockbuster that happened to be terrible.
There a a lot of movies, particularly aimed at younger audiences when they are going to go see no matter what the reviews were like.
Anyway I am sure it has some impact, but bottom line the box office earnings are a bit more complicated than how it was reviewed.
My most recent example, is I wanted to go see The Dark Tower as I saw the promotions, and I've read some of the books, however I saw how poorly it did on RT, but also saw how well Logan Lucky did, and without knowing much about it decided to go to that instead (and it was good).
I'd also be very careful/critical about how accurate those box office numbers actually are, as Hollywood doesn't exactly have a pristine record when it comes to fiscal honesty, considering they have their own word attributed to their "accounting" practices.
I really hope there is an Easter egg in the Tesla software that does a "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that", and then locks the doors menacingly...
For the *most* part I am always a bit surprised about the complaints. I mean it is like buying a shovel, that is designed to have spikes on the handle, for the only discernible reason being so that you also have to buy their special gloves in order to use it... When said persons are questioned on if they think that was a good idea, inevitably the response is, "Ya but it is a really GOOD shovel". But is it?
This is of course predicated on the fact that there are many other shovels laying around without spikes one might purchase. In some cases, either one industry is so dominated by either one company, or that the few companies that do exist, but more less all collude together to the same business model of screwing their customers VIA said locked in software. In that case it is truly detestable as there isn't much the consumer can do about it (provided they actually NEED said services/products). One would hope that is where government and consumer protection might step in (of course provided they aren't taking political contributions from said companies).
1) Facial recognition to unlock your phone? LOL! What could possibly go wrong. I'd imagine that it will work about as well as Siri (which is to say not very well). Might as well unlock your phone by getting in a argument with Siri and having it analyse that!:)
2) Getting rid of home button. Good idea. Was a point of failure. Also already sort of implemented. Girlfriend broke her home button (probably though continuous usage), but was able to limp by however by adjusting the software to do it VIA the touch screen. Which was a bit of a pain in the ass as it wasn't designed very well, but probably could easily be adjusted to serve just fine. I mean most other phone have gotten rid of their physical buttons awhile ago, probably for the same reason (point of mechanical failure), I mean the last one I had that did I think was my Samsung S3...
I pretty much agree with your entire assessment of what likely happened, and unfortunately what will likely happen as a result. Password = Admin or something foolish like that, unencrypted text file, open ports, unpatched software, etc....
However unlikely you missed one possible option, that of the inside job, where some disenfranchised admin sold out critical access information to someone for a bunch of money.
Heck it could be swapping out unencrypted HD at the datacenter and disposal without destruction.
One of the things that makes me raise an eyebrow, is the 143 million number which seems pretty specific. I presume this is the number they arrived at during their investigation... I wonder exactly how that was figured out? Access logs, ransom note etc...?
It is all about exclusive geographic licencing rights. I looked into this some time ago when it was first announced.
If you live in the USA: CBS Streaming Service If you live in Canada: Bell Canada will air it on it's "Space" cable channel. If you live anywhere else: You will be able to watch it on Netflix (Though I am uncertain if individual episodes will be available, it may only be available after the first season has been aired, and then posted to Netflix).
It is kinda BS. I have the Space channel of course so I'll probably TiVo it and watch it. Odds are it will be more easily available for many people various ways on the internets, which may eventually cause CBS to rethink their current distribution model.
I think the difference you might be thinking of is Criminal VS Civil. If through your own negligence you're found CRIMINALLY responsible for something, then LLC isn't going to probably do much for you. If someone feels like suing you CIVILLY for say money they feel you own them, well I think that might be where the whole LLC comes into play.
I remember a lawyer trying to explain that simply putting a waiver doesn't exempt you from laws, you are still subject to them. It might help a bit, should there be at least some wiggle room, but for the most part if you're negligent, you're negligent.
#1 & #2 are the big ones. I've seen this myself a lot over the years. The process is very scripted. The selection process is going to be contracted out to a firm first, then to HR, and then to management. Until it gets to management the people doing the evaluation usually have no idea what it is the job is about, and simply depend on keywords. To make things worse is that unless you mention every single one of those skills/technologies some other guy is going to get more "points" and it going to make the next stage of the selection process. So the only way to do that is go line by line and speak to every single one. Not only that, you usually have to use some form like describe a problem, how you resolved it, and what the result was.... for each and every one. It got pretty ridiculous. I remember back many years ago when I was applying for a lot of positions it wasn't unheard of to attach a 15+ page "cover letter" to a 2 page resume as part of the application. About 5 or 6 years ago, HR figured out to limit the applications to 5 pages, making actually addressing all the points effectively impossible (other to say "yes I have X"). I believe they now use another weighted formula which assigns a percentage of priority to items (which you will not know), making some keywords worth much more than others (which is a bit of BS). I lost one competition when I had almost 15 years experience, yet the other guy only had 2 or 3, yet didn't even get through the "selection" process. In that particular case I sort of guessed that it would happen and more less applied in spite as I knew they would "weight" the process so they could just hire the guy that the manager wanted to in the first place.
Anyway a lot of it basically comes down to managers trying to game their own hiring processes to get whatever desired result they have in mind in the first place. Be that to get around union rules, their own company policies, outsource justifications, etc... So I would take the whole idea of "open" jobs with a healthy grain of salt.
I only watched one also. Logan Lucky, which was quite good and I recommended to many people to go watch.
Bottom line, make bad movies, get less viewer interest, particularly if it is the 5th reboot of the same material etc...
I wanted to watch The Dark Tower, but was HIGHLY suspicious that it wouldn't be horrible. Read the reviews, and saw that it was indeed terrible, so didn't bother with it...
If the AI learned anything it would be how to use racial and sexual slurs in Peruvian whilst smack talking the entire time ultimately quitting the match should any of the other "parameters" upset them...
A computer learning how to win a computer game doesn't impress me much. Had it learned gamer behavior that would be something to see!:)
Agreed. There are examples of both good and bad. Could be an example of trying to find your market or niche, and pandering to a group to sell books.
One of the worst I ever read was Heris Serrano by Elizabeth Moon. However I see looking up the details she was nominated for a Hugo back in 1997...
Plenty of good ones out there, Left Hand of Darkness etc...
I'd also agree that some of the older greats also had some pretty ridiculous male protagonists... Bova and Heinlein come to mind. One could argue that they might be trying to be political statement a la Ann Rynd sort of thing (anti authority etc). However when it's a female captain who hunts foxes and has a robotic saddle, I'm not sure what statement that is really making, perhaps against the aristocracy? Or girls just like stories about privileged wealthy women, and horses are awesome!
I've also worked GIS and Oracle (not always together) for almost 20 years now. I wouldn't disagree with your assessment of Postgres/PostGIS. However it is a somewhat "new" technology. I see new innovation in that direction. However at the same time we have a ton of legacy applications in Oracle too expensive to replace, the lock-in with Oracle makes moving more difficult, and the amount of inertia involved with that load keeps pulling in that direction. That said, most of the newer releases (The oldest I've worked with was 7 something I believe), while they might offer some new features or functions are more less lost on the legacy application other than that they maintain a somewhat modern compatibility and support. In fact in all the upgrade cycles we've gone though only the change from 10 to 11 caused any problems. That was when they decided to change how Oracle handled upper and lower case values, which played holy hell with a bunch of legacy applications search functions that had be coded a bit more loosely (i.e. they didn't consider upper/lower at the time, whereas some others more robustly manually constrained it to one or the other within code). It was confusing for a time, until it was also noticed that number searches worked just fine. Anyway I see some movement from Oracle, but it is going to be a slow slog, and really won't happen until all those legacy applications start to really fall apart. Even then going to something that is open source is a tough call for large organizations, particularly when taking into consideration support and training and the like (and what consultants and whatnot are out there and available).
Never see the light of day. Google can just throw money at it to go away. Settle. They could give him an obscene amount of money, and it wouldn't even register as a blip on their bottom line, and they likely would think it a good idea for the amount of negative PR surrounding it all.
Of course if anyone caught wind, you might have a lot of engineers writing some emails...:P
Slashdot Mirror
That said when it is considered, most of the security policies I've seen are most about applying blame than actual "security".
Essentially, you've made the security restrictions so hard to use that users are all going to circumvent it. "Well then it isn't our fault, it is theirs". The simple example are ridiculous login procedures which prompt all the users to write all the details down on sticky notes and attach it to the monitors... To which they would argue that it was secure, and it is all the users fault for not following accepted procedures. To me that is not security. Security is a much larger picture that needs to be considered. I've seen all sorts of stuff written to circumvent certain security policy simply because said policy breaks everything, and makes it pretty much impossible to work within otherwise.
Also I think people are forgetting the type of position. I mean first of all it seems that 11 years of experience for that type of position is too few (heck I've been around for 17 in field, well not security but you get the idea). However perhaps she did really well, or got high regard. At any rate, as CSO, or Director, or VP, or any of those positions, it isn't like she is doing any real hands on IT work. She is a manager. In case no one has ever noticed (and I doubt that as everyone bitches about it constantly on here, including myself), most managers lack most technical experience, though some might come from that background it certainly isn't required. They are around to manage a team, department, etc... and make the final call on decision that might impact that. So in this case who knows, perhaps the whole organization is technically backwards, her team was terrible, conceivable she was never told or notified of the problems, or had institutional challenges (i.e. funding, or lack of priority, etc...). As to her retiring, well she could have been close to retirement anyway, and didn't want to put up with the incoming backlash, and regardless she was the person at the helm, and you take the fall, perhaps even when it wasn't entirely your fault. When you're the CSO and you company has the biggest privacy breach in the history of the world, at *best* you retire regardless of background, gender, or whatever.
Anyway the short version is that she is a manager, not technical staff, so judging her only on that is a bit much. Who knows, perhaps she was a horrible manager, and didn't control her department, or didn't fight hard enough for security priorities, or was responsible for bad policies or practices... But it isn't like she would have been the one that specifically messed up, though nominally responsible for as manager however, hence the "retirement".
So a couple of points. I'd say generally speaking the pay in the US is more. There are also more opportunity (though perhaps more competition as well). Tax burden is heavier in Canada for sure. I don't think the cold or the darkness really matters when trying to KEEP talent, as they would already be used to it. Trying to ATTRACT talent, well that might be a different matter. Also, another point is that most of the places where these jobs are located are also the most expensive to live in Canada, Toronto and Vancouver for example. Montreal however isn't as expensive, however some might be put off or at least a bit intimidated by living in Quebec and all the French speaking, though Montreal is totally bilingual anyway. I doubt Travel is a big deal, Canada is BIG. I live about 2000 km away from my family for example. There are plenty of families that are spread across the country.
Then there is the political climate, not to mention cultural. As much as we are good neighbors, and share a lot of commonalities, Canadians in general are a different bunch of people. I know once upon a time I had a bit of a plan in which I was going to work in Canada for about 5 years, then head south for the big bucks. It was about that time that George W Bush was elected. I decided that things were going good enough as they were. It wasn't the only reason of course, but I can't say it didn't enter my thought process. So while money certainly factors into it of course, it isn't everything. That said, at least in Canada's instance, being a bit more competitive on salary is probably one of the key factors that if address might make a big difference.
Awesome! Now they can create a car that never needs charging ever! Just install about 10,000 of those bad boys and you get about 300,000 km per change! Seeing as the car probably won't last much longer than that anyway, you can just use your car, never charge it, and then just toss it away! Perfect!
"BTC really only has value because the BTC user base has formed a consensus that it does"
You pretty much just described very succinctly every currency that exists.
Even the last part about tainted BTC's pretty much describe those currencies that go through hyper inflation due to printing of money to the point of worthlessness.
I doubt they knew about that specific breach that long ago (or that it happened that long ago), otherwise why announce it now?
It is more likely that they knew their security was a joke, and that they were very vulnerable and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened.
The worst part is that they spend millions lobbying government to limit their breach liability when they could have been spending that money on some security folks to do an audit of their systems and fix their actual problem. The fact that the former is seen as a better alternative than the later is surely a sign of what is wrong in the world...
*Ahem* I pretty much said as much previously. It's exciting to imagine a cabal of hackers doing things like this, however reality more often than not is just incompetence.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
For bonus points for men at least, make sure the reference is taken when *ahem* fully "engaged". Make them work for access if they really want it...
No more wrenches?
https://xkcd.com/538/
Then again, everything is fair game just not your face I suppose which is a small win I guess.
Agreed. One of the "challenges" that *democratic* governments have is anything longer than the political cycle. Large infrastructure projects, long term economic plans, and long term priorities such as things like Climate Change are very difficult for the political structure to handle. It is also compounded by the fact that political parties actively WANT the initiatives of the other parties to fail is also very counter productive. Particularly so when most elections seem to more less mirror a "tick-tock" sort of pattern of one party in power until the public grows weary of them, then another (or other), and so on and so forth. Additionally compounded by political contributions by special interest groups trying to sway the direction into whatever it is that is most favorable to them.
Outside of governments, you can see this perhaps even more pronounced in recent times with publicly traded companies with shareholders and investments etc... There used to be a day when companies took a longer view and did a lot more R&D, and didn't just see it as a line item on a ledger that reduces their profits that particular quarter. There seems to be more emphasis on maximizing sort term profits over long term profitability, in part because of the aforementioned reasons, but also likely due to the revolving door of CEO's meeting their bonus obligations prior to GTFO and leaving the mess for the next guy to deal with (which is pretty analogous to the political issues mentioned previously as well). The method du jour of progressing technology seems to be through acquisition of other companies (which is further consolidation), or just licensing someone else's ideas, or just using them anyway, then having long drawn out court battles over who is owed however many millions/billions after the fact.
I think this is something that both are going to struggle with in the future (and now) when competing with more *ahem* consolidated powers such as China and Nationalized companies in the longer term. Their goals and time horizons are just so much greater. Don't really have any answers, but just pointing out the challenges.
In the more (pardon pun) specific case of this article, which specifically has to do with the semiconductor industry it isn't helped by the amount of consolidation in the industry and lack of competition. I can count on my hand the number of chip designers and fabricators, and even those are segmented into pretty unique niches meaning that there is very little overlap or competition diving innovation right now. That said, this is prevalent in a lot of related sectors for example, memory, storage, etc... Even on the more mundane hardware suppliers for things like PSU, etc...
One last note on the topic is that the trend of companies business models towards anti-consumer practices isn't exactly helping innovation at all. Innovation occurs when Product A has some feature than Product B doesn't have which is desirable by the consumer, so the consumer goes with Product B, thus generating profit and further incentive to innovate new and interesting features or faster processors etc... However when the business models seem less concerned with keeping consumers happy, or engaging them with innovative products and more about locking them into a particular product, making any sort of movement to another more difficult really disincentives innovation. As why bother making something faster, or integrating something better, when you know your customers have to buy whatever it is you're selling pretty much no matter what. Again compounded by instances where the primary product isn't something that actually produces the profit by itself, but is rather a conduit for other revenue streams, printer ink, music, or apps for example.
Anyway occasionally there is some government/consumer/industry push back on all the above, however there is just as much pushing the other direction for the status quo, and typically a lot of inertia to try and overcome for any real change. Just take a look a media for example and how much they have fought tooth and nail against any sort of technical innovation within their sector in favor of trying to get the old business model going. Who knows where we would be today if they had decided to take a more proactive approach.
My favorite part of the movie was where two anonymous Storm Troopers are walking down a corridor, and they hear Darth Teenage Angst having a fit in the next room, one signals to the other, and they immediately head in a different direction...
Why I like it:
1) Even with zero dialog it is hilarious
2) Typically in the past Storm Troopers were pretty much put in the movie to die, they are just hero cannon fodder, adds some humanism to them. Probably why they just went with Robots in the prequels.
3) I like to think with the story line of the ex-Trooper hero, that this was also done intentionally as a further device to show that Storm Troopers are individuals and not just clone robots, or brain washed cannon fodder.
That said, when the ex-Trooper goes rogue for his sensibilities about killing people, he does a pretty good job of mass murdering a lot of his comrades in arms on the way out and after...
Also on an somewhat unrelated note, I thought the plot device of the Super Death Star was a bit silly and anime. I mean what can we expect in the next one? A Super Duper Death Star twice as big as the last?
I'll pay a writer 100$ if they can sneak in a line for when the hero's scan the new Super Duper Death Star, when a screen starts flashing increasing numbers beyond 9000, that says something to the effect Ray: "This Cannot Be!. ... It's over 9000!" Luke: "No... no... that's not true!... that's impossible!"
First off how "good" (putting aside "ratings" for a second) a movie is has only a limited baring on how "successful" (i.e. box office earnings) a movie is.
A more likely correlation would be how much money was spent on promotion, how wide the actual release was, how many theaters it is showing in, how broad the audience is (not only in ratings such as "R", but also in content).
Ratings, word of mouth, negative press may either impact A) someones decision to not see something they had intended to see, or B) someones decision to see something they had not intended to see.
Indeed ratings can get difficult to compare apples to apples when either the numbers of contributors are really high, or really low. Generally speaking there are likely a lot of small independent films that critics might love (yet have few reviews both in critics and viewers), yet it isn't going to do the same as a big blockbuster that happened to be terrible.
There a a lot of movies, particularly aimed at younger audiences when they are going to go see no matter what the reviews were like.
Anyway I am sure it has some impact, but bottom line the box office earnings are a bit more complicated than how it was reviewed.
My most recent example, is I wanted to go see The Dark Tower as I saw the promotions, and I've read some of the books, however I saw how poorly it did on RT, but also saw how well Logan Lucky did, and without knowing much about it decided to go to that instead (and it was good).
I'd also be very careful/critical about how accurate those box office numbers actually are, as Hollywood doesn't exactly have a pristine record when it comes to fiscal honesty, considering they have their own word attributed to their "accounting" practices.
I really hope there is an Easter egg in the Tesla software that does a "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that", and then locks the doors menacingly...
For the *most* part I am always a bit surprised about the complaints. I mean it is like buying a shovel, that is designed to have spikes on the handle, for the only discernible reason being so that you also have to buy their special gloves in order to use it... When said persons are questioned on if they think that was a good idea, inevitably the response is, "Ya but it is a really GOOD shovel". But is it?
This is of course predicated on the fact that there are many other shovels laying around without spikes one might purchase. In some cases, either one industry is so dominated by either one company, or that the few companies that do exist, but more less all collude together to the same business model of screwing their customers VIA said locked in software. In that case it is truly detestable as there isn't much the consumer can do about it (provided they actually NEED said services/products). One would hope that is where government and consumer protection might step in (of course provided they aren't taking political contributions from said companies).
1) Facial recognition to unlock your phone? LOL! What could possibly go wrong. I'd imagine that it will work about as well as Siri (which is to say not very well). Might as well unlock your phone by getting in a argument with Siri and having it analyse that! :)
2) Getting rid of home button. Good idea. Was a point of failure. Also already sort of implemented. Girlfriend broke her home button (probably though continuous usage), but was able to limp by however by adjusting the software to do it VIA the touch screen. Which was a bit of a pain in the ass as it wasn't designed very well, but probably could easily be adjusted to serve just fine. I mean most other phone have gotten rid of their physical buttons awhile ago, probably for the same reason (point of mechanical failure), I mean the last one I had that did I think was my Samsung S3...
I pretty much agree with your entire assessment of what likely happened, and unfortunately what will likely happen as a result. Password = Admin or something foolish like that, unencrypted text file, open ports, unpatched software, etc....
However unlikely you missed one possible option, that of the inside job, where some disenfranchised admin sold out critical access information to someone for a bunch of money.
Heck it could be swapping out unencrypted HD at the datacenter and disposal without destruction.
One of the things that makes me raise an eyebrow, is the 143 million number which seems pretty specific. I presume this is the number they arrived at during their investigation... I wonder exactly how that was figured out? Access logs, ransom note etc...?
It is all about exclusive geographic licencing rights. I looked into this some time ago when it was first announced.
If you live in the USA: CBS Streaming Service
If you live in Canada: Bell Canada will air it on it's "Space" cable channel.
If you live anywhere else: You will be able to watch it on Netflix (Though I am uncertain if individual episodes will be available, it may only be available after the first season has been aired, and then posted to Netflix).
It is kinda BS. I have the Space channel of course so I'll probably TiVo it and watch it. Odds are it will be more easily available for many people various ways on the internets, which may eventually cause CBS to rethink their current distribution model.
Well also Westinghouse went bankrupt I believe, that might have had something to do with it also.
I think the difference you might be thinking of is Criminal VS Civil. If through your own negligence you're found CRIMINALLY responsible for something, then LLC isn't going to probably do much for you. If someone feels like suing you CIVILLY for say money they feel you own them, well I think that might be where the whole LLC comes into play.
I remember a lawyer trying to explain that simply putting a waiver doesn't exempt you from laws, you are still subject to them. It might help a bit, should there be at least some wiggle room, but for the most part if you're negligent, you're negligent.
#1 & #2 are the big ones. I've seen this myself a lot over the years. The process is very scripted. The selection process is going to be contracted out to a firm first, then to HR, and then to management. Until it gets to management the people doing the evaluation usually have no idea what it is the job is about, and simply depend on keywords. To make things worse is that unless you mention every single one of those skills/technologies some other guy is going to get more "points" and it going to make the next stage of the selection process. So the only way to do that is go line by line and speak to every single one. Not only that, you usually have to use some form like describe a problem, how you resolved it, and what the result was.... for each and every one. It got pretty ridiculous. I remember back many years ago when I was applying for a lot of positions it wasn't unheard of to attach a 15+ page "cover letter" to a 2 page resume as part of the application. About 5 or 6 years ago, HR figured out to limit the applications to 5 pages, making actually addressing all the points effectively impossible (other to say "yes I have X"). I believe they now use another weighted formula which assigns a percentage of priority to items (which you will not know), making some keywords worth much more than others (which is a bit of BS). I lost one competition when I had almost 15 years experience, yet the other guy only had 2 or 3, yet didn't even get through the "selection" process. In that particular case I sort of guessed that it would happen and more less applied in spite as I knew they would "weight" the process so they could just hire the guy that the manager wanted to in the first place.
Anyway a lot of it basically comes down to managers trying to game their own hiring processes to get whatever desired result they have in mind in the first place. Be that to get around union rules, their own company policies, outsource justifications, etc... So I would take the whole idea of "open" jobs with a healthy grain of salt.
I only watched one also. Logan Lucky, which was quite good and I recommended to many people to go watch.
Bottom line, make bad movies, get less viewer interest, particularly if it is the 5th reboot of the same material etc...
I wanted to watch The Dark Tower, but was HIGHLY suspicious that it wouldn't be horrible. Read the reviews, and saw that it was indeed terrible, so didn't bother with it...
If the AI learned anything it would be how to use racial and sexual slurs in Peruvian whilst smack talking the entire time ultimately quitting the match should any of the other "parameters" upset them...
A computer learning how to win a computer game doesn't impress me much. Had it learned gamer behavior that would be something to see! :)
Agreed. There are examples of both good and bad. Could be an example of trying to find your market or niche, and pandering to a group to sell books.
One of the worst I ever read was Heris Serrano by Elizabeth Moon. However I see looking up the details she was nominated for a Hugo back in 1997...
Plenty of good ones out there, Left Hand of Darkness etc...
I'd also agree that some of the older greats also had some pretty ridiculous male protagonists... Bova and Heinlein come to mind. One could argue that they might be trying to be political statement a la Ann Rynd sort of thing (anti authority etc). However when it's a female captain who hunts foxes and has a robotic saddle, I'm not sure what statement that is really making, perhaps against the aristocracy? Or girls just like stories about privileged wealthy women, and horses are awesome!
I've also worked GIS and Oracle (not always together) for almost 20 years now. I wouldn't disagree with your assessment of Postgres/PostGIS. However it is a somewhat "new" technology. I see new innovation in that direction. However at the same time we have a ton of legacy applications in Oracle too expensive to replace, the lock-in with Oracle makes moving more difficult, and the amount of inertia involved with that load keeps pulling in that direction. That said, most of the newer releases (The oldest I've worked with was 7 something I believe), while they might offer some new features or functions are more less lost on the legacy application other than that they maintain a somewhat modern compatibility and support. In fact in all the upgrade cycles we've gone though only the change from 10 to 11 caused any problems. That was when they decided to change how Oracle handled upper and lower case values, which played holy hell with a bunch of legacy applications search functions that had be coded a bit more loosely (i.e. they didn't consider upper/lower at the time, whereas some others more robustly manually constrained it to one or the other within code). It was confusing for a time, until it was also noticed that number searches worked just fine. Anyway I see some movement from Oracle, but it is going to be a slow slog, and really won't happen until all those legacy applications start to really fall apart. Even then going to something that is open source is a tough call for large organizations, particularly when taking into consideration support and training and the like (and what consultants and whatnot are out there and available).
Never see the light of day. Google can just throw money at it to go away. Settle. They could give him an obscene amount of money, and it wouldn't even register as a blip on their bottom line, and they likely would think it a good idea for the amount of negative PR surrounding it all.
Of course if anyone caught wind, you might have a lot of engineers writing some emails... :P