In support of the government's policies on Critical Infrastructure Protection, there is this outreach program between NSA and various educational institutions which is producing just really excellent security professionals. In light of corporate resistance to DHS's attempts to bring the private sector onboard, I think this and similar programs are the best shot we have at securing the civilian sector.
The article, in the most polite way possible, slams IT types for disregarding security and not knowing how to properly interface with law enforcement personnel.
From my perspective, there is a real dichotomy between IT and Security. While I have encountered quite a few IT types who take the time to learn about security issues, it seems as if they involve completely different mindsets. IT personnel are technical support--they worry about connectivity and uptime and handling the clownishness of the users. Security types are usually a lot more paranoid and consider the needs of the users a secondary concern to the integrity of the assets.
The current model seems to be to hire a few security experts (and I use the term loosely--for every Eric Cole there probably 1000 clowns who read his book and considers himself just as good) to give recommendations and train the IT staff. I think the improvement in incident response and cleanup times is the result, but do you see that in terms of prevention we're not any better off?
Some kind of integrated approach is necessary, but I think it's a ways off.
...and THIS post reminds me of why Linux is not catching on, nor will it, with the masses.
When Joe Sixpack purchases a new Dell, even if he doesn't have a clue how to use Windows, there is probably going to be some kind of animated dog or pencil sharpener or whatever that will, in the most friendly manner possible, explain how to use the system to get done what you want to get done (or at least, get you started). Sure, it's annoying to anyone who isn't a complete n00b, and if you extend that line of thinking, the more advanced of a user you are, the more willing you are to look things up and the less likely you are to be frustrated when you have to work a little harder to get results.
But Linux users also must understand--there is a bit of a gap between being the kind of intermediate user who is just "graduating" from the win32 world and the advanced user who doesn't mind decrypting man pages. Linux users, as a whole, seem all to ready to consign these types to the pit of stupidity--look at your language. "Moron." "Idiot." Right. Do you regularly treat all the n00bs like shit? Are you then suprised that your community isn't growing as fast as it should? You should not be--not when the user base has such an enormous and unearned superiority complex.
It is hypocritical for us to deride new users at one time, and then foolish to expect people to flock to the product "Because it's better."
I don't see why they couldn't just offer webcasts of shows after they've aired. Quite a few webradio sites do it (e.g. DNA Lounge, BBC).
One of the great things about XM is that they listen to their customers (at least so far as programming goes). If enough people want a product like this then they'll probably produce one again.
I think this was addressed in a previous post. 40 years of attempting forced equality (affirmative action etc.) were supposed to lead, eventually, to real equality. Now, in the above example, you have a competition that excludes people based on gender, and YOU say this is justified because in the future it will mean more women in the field. It sounds like you're restating the previous argument. Maybe this is true, but then again, it's still discriminatory.
I can't help but be reminded of a certain episode of Sealab 2021...
The alternative, of course, would be to allow one person of differing beliefs to bend an entire local community over a barrel the second he moves in. Sure, that's fair.
To both you and a previous poster who complained that the changes instituted by (e.g.) Bush-as-Christian-nutbag were alright, but that his motivations were unacceptable...I just want to know why you think it's ok to claim for your own religious bigotry the legitimacy you would deny to people exercising their Constitutional rights.
Diehard secularists hostile to all religion are the worst religious nutbags ever produced.
Re:Why should we care?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Perfect example here...
Gamers are into radical individualism. Every single game out there casts you as a lone wolf with the weight of the world on your shoulders...which is exactly how most people think of themselves.
Further subcategorization of games is possible but unnecessary. I mean, you've got the fantasy genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but I secretly posess magical skills that make up for it") and the action/sci-fi/fps genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but you just wait 'til I get a machine gun...") and then the strategy genre...well, what can you say about a bunch of people who think of themselves as a cross between Patton and Cobra Commander?
Games are about being heroes--the modern world does not embrace heroes who "win" by sacrificing themselves...just look at the negative/. reaction to the last matrix film.
Oddly enough, you do find this quality in the team-based FPSs (Day of Defeat comes to mind).
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Sure, Christianity has a violent history, but like most amateur historians you resort to rather disingenuous arguments in order to prove your point.
For example...you go from "Christians periodically persecuted Jews" to "Hitler's Final Solution was just the latest in a long line of Europeans killing Jews." Are you trying to make a connection between Hitler and Christianity? If so why not come out and say it?
As for all of your other examples--hundreds of millions of witches killed, thousands of Natives being killed after being baptized, etc.--prove it. Or, at least, cite your source. Attempt some serious scholarship, at least.
As for your last point--"People reject Christianity because it has a bloody history"--I have two things to say. One, Communism (especially under Stalin) has a far bloodier history than any series of religious wars (60 million murdered in the gulags to satisfy an entirely temporal desire to establish "heaven on earth") and yet people still believe that bullshit. Second, yes, that sort of bloody history happens when there's an issue people take as seriously as this--your point is like arguing that people should reject notions of right or wrong because it is unpleasant to disagree.
Item: DHS is highly concerned with any kind of hacking or spamming under the umbrella of "critical infrastructure protection."
Item: the US has already been spun up once before by snipers and the threat thereof.
Question: Given the above, do you suppose that this kind of thing will be taken seriously by the government? Or, perhaps, the proper terminology would be "Too seriously."
And if so, what would be done about it? Probably nothing overseas; but what about the thousands of COMCAST and Cox Cable customers who leave themselves wide open to being hijacked to relay spam?
Not so. By limiting as many avenues of exploitation as possible, you can concentrate more time & energy on other, harder to control methods by which a Bad Guy can hurt you (e.g. background checks, physical security).
It is for this reason that the comment on thin clients is wholly apropriate.
Another angle which you may not have considered is this: A company is responsible for safeguarding its data for the sake of its investors, right? So that company is required to take all reasonable steps to prevent theft of data, etc., under which category "not allowing anyone and everyone to carry around devices capable of storing data" certainly falls. In case you have not already, I recommend you pick up a book or take a seminar on risk management so you can see this from your employer's point of view.
All I'm saying is, there are issues which definately trump your desire to rock out on your way into the building:)
Would you care to cite your reference re: the Supreme Court case?
I ask because I remember reading about the New Hampshire state Supreme Court ruling that even stuff you throw away is to remain private (ie the cops are not allowed to go through citizens' garbage).
Seems to me as if there already exist exceedingly simple algorithms for predicting the value of a stochastic variable x at time = t(n+1) given all values (t(0) through t(n)).
The Holt-Winters Forecasting Algorithm comes to mind (or any other application of LES).
Point of information, however (not to be pedantic)...the "reinstated" Orthodox church was an arm of the KGB. This is well-documented and I wouldn't cite it as evidence that Stalin (or any of those who followed him) were pro-any-religion.
As for Hitler being Roman Catholic...much less devout...hardly. Respectfully suggest you ignore Daniel Goldhagen and move on to some more scholarly works, if you haven't already.
The Big Names of the 20th century all applied the secular ideology of the times (eugenics, atheism, etc.) which is why secularism has a bad name in the first place... Not to sound patronising, but if I may...Suggested reading: The Humanist Manifesto Vols. 1-3. As presented these are all Bad Ideas. They could be made to work but most attempts to date seem to have resulted in mass murder.
I wonder, I bet I could make buku dinero doing as a DoD IT/IS security consultant. Security is a economically inelastic product... entities will pay $$$$$$$$ for real security, not airport TSA-brand of security.
Lets look at the genecide scores here, Christians...many millions. Muslums... yet to truely exterminate anyone
Respectfully suggest you check your facts.
Christians as a group haven't killed "many millions." We can attribute quite a bit of shit to them (including the Inquisition, religious wars, Salem Witch Hunts, etc.) but I would be suprised if the death toll reached any millions.
The greatest murderers in history are and will probably remain secularists: the Holocaust (13 million), Stalin's Gulags (~60 million), Pol Pot (~5 million), etc.
Actually...I don't think you can explain away the Christian element in Lewis' stories (or Tolkein's, for that matter).
It's not "a product of the times" nor an attempt to appease a certain audience...
It is rather the point of the story, in fact.
If that sort of thing turns you off, then by all means, you are invited not to watch it.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me add a quick addendum to LanMan's post.
In support of the government's policies on Critical Infrastructure Protection, there is this outreach program between NSA and various educational institutions which is producing just really excellent security professionals. In light of corporate resistance to DHS's attempts to bring the private sector onboard, I think this and similar programs are the best shot we have at securing the civilian sector.
More information can be found here.
The article, in the most polite way possible, slams IT types for disregarding security and not knowing how to properly interface with law enforcement personnel.
From my perspective, there is a real dichotomy between IT and Security. While I have encountered quite a few IT types who take the time to learn about security issues, it seems as if they involve completely different mindsets. IT personnel are technical support--they worry about connectivity and uptime and handling the clownishness of the users. Security types are usually a lot more paranoid and consider the needs of the users a secondary concern to the integrity of the assets.
The current model seems to be to hire a few security experts (and I use the term loosely--for every Eric Cole there probably 1000 clowns who read his book and considers himself just as good) to give recommendations and train the IT staff. I think the improvement in incident response and cleanup times is the result, but do you see that in terms of prevention we're not any better off?
Some kind of integrated approach is necessary, but I think it's a ways off.
...and THIS post reminds me of why Linux is not catching on, nor will it, with the masses.
When Joe Sixpack purchases a new Dell, even if he doesn't have a clue how to use Windows, there is probably going to be some kind of animated dog or pencil sharpener or whatever that will, in the most friendly manner possible, explain how to use the system to get done what you want to get done (or at least, get you started). Sure, it's annoying to anyone who isn't a complete n00b, and if you extend that line of thinking, the more advanced of a user you are, the more willing you are to look things up and the less likely you are to be frustrated when you have to work a little harder to get results.
But Linux users also must understand--there is a bit of a gap between being the kind of intermediate user who is just "graduating" from the win32 world and the advanced user who doesn't mind decrypting man pages. Linux users, as a whole, seem all to ready to consign these types to the pit of stupidity--look at your language. "Moron." "Idiot." Right. Do you regularly treat all the n00bs like shit? Are you then suprised that your community isn't growing as fast as it should? You should not be--not when the user base has such an enormous and unearned superiority complex.
It is hypocritical for us to deride new users at one time, and then foolish to expect people to flock to the product "Because it's better."
I don't see why they couldn't just offer webcasts of shows after they've aired. Quite a few webradio sites do it (e.g. DNA Lounge, BBC).
One of the great things about XM is that they listen to their customers (at least so far as programming goes). If enough people want a product like this then they'll probably produce one again.
I think this was addressed in a previous post. 40 years of attempting forced equality (affirmative action etc.) were supposed to lead, eventually, to real equality. Now, in the above example, you have a competition that excludes people based on gender, and YOU say this is justified because in the future it will mean more women in the field. It sounds like you're restating the previous argument. Maybe this is true, but then again, it's still discriminatory.
I can't help but be reminded of a certain episode of Sealab 2021...
The alternative, of course, would be to allow one person of differing beliefs to bend an entire local community over a barrel the second he moves in. Sure, that's fair.
To both you and a previous poster who complained that the changes instituted by (e.g.) Bush-as-Christian-nutbag were alright, but that his motivations were unacceptable...I just want to know why you think it's ok to claim for your own religious bigotry the legitimacy you would deny to people exercising their Constitutional rights.
Diehard secularists hostile to all religion are the worst religious nutbags ever produced.
Perfect example here...
/. reaction to the last matrix film.
Gamers are into radical individualism. Every single game out there casts you as a lone wolf with the weight of the world on your shoulders...which is exactly how most people think of themselves.
Further subcategorization of games is possible but unnecessary. I mean, you've got the fantasy genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but I secretly posess magical skills that make up for it") and the action/sci-fi/fps genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but you just wait 'til I get a machine gun...") and then the strategy genre...well, what can you say about a bunch of people who think of themselves as a cross between Patton and Cobra Commander?
Games are about being heroes--the modern world does not embrace heroes who "win" by sacrificing themselves...just look at the negative
Oddly enough, you do find this quality in the team-based FPSs (Day of Defeat comes to mind).
Sure, Christianity has a violent history, but like most amateur historians you resort to rather disingenuous arguments in order to prove your point.
For example...you go from "Christians periodically persecuted Jews" to "Hitler's Final Solution was just the latest in a long line of Europeans killing Jews." Are you trying to make a connection between Hitler and Christianity? If so why not come out and say it?
As for all of your other examples--hundreds of millions of witches killed, thousands of Natives being killed after being baptized, etc.--prove it. Or, at least, cite your source. Attempt some serious scholarship, at least.
As for your last point--"People reject Christianity because it has a bloody history"--I have two things to say. One, Communism (especially under Stalin) has a far bloodier history than any series of religious wars (60 million murdered in the gulags to satisfy an entirely temporal desire to establish "heaven on earth") and yet people still believe that bullshit. Second, yes, that sort of bloody history happens when there's an issue people take as seriously as this--your point is like arguing that people should reject notions of right or wrong because it is unpleasant to disagree.
Oh. Wait. They already do that.
Damn.
Item: DHS is highly concerned with any kind of hacking or spamming under the umbrella of "critical infrastructure protection."
Item: the US has already been spun up once before by snipers and the threat thereof.
Question: Given the above, do you suppose that this kind of thing will be taken seriously by the government? Or, perhaps, the proper terminology would be "Too seriously."
And if so, what would be done about it? Probably nothing overseas; but what about the thousands of COMCAST and Cox Cable customers who leave themselves wide open to being hijacked to relay spam?
Not so. By limiting as many avenues of exploitation as possible, you can concentrate more time & energy on other, harder to control methods by which a Bad Guy can hurt you (e.g. background checks, physical security).
:)
It is for this reason that the comment on thin clients is wholly apropriate.
Another angle which you may not have considered is this: A company is responsible for safeguarding its data for the sake of its investors, right? So that company is required to take all reasonable steps to prevent theft of data, etc., under which category "not allowing anyone and everyone to carry around devices capable of storing data" certainly falls. In case you have not already, I recommend you pick up a book or take a seminar on risk management so you can see this from your employer's point of view.
All I'm saying is, there are issues which definately trump your desire to rock out on your way into the building
Would you care to cite your reference re: the Supreme Court case?
I ask because I remember reading about the New Hampshire state Supreme Court ruling that even stuff you throw away is to remain private (ie the cops are not allowed to go through citizens' garbage).
Just makes ya wonder.
How do you know he's American?
No, he got it right, which just goes to show he's probably pissed more water than you've sailed over.
Seems to me as if there already exist exceedingly simple algorithms for predicting the value of a stochastic variable x at time = t(n+1) given all values (t(0) through t(n)).
The Holt-Winters Forecasting Algorithm comes to mind (or any other application of LES).
Fair enough.
Point of information, however (not to be pedantic)...the "reinstated" Orthodox church was an arm of the KGB. This is well-documented and I wouldn't cite it as evidence that Stalin (or any of those who followed him) were pro-any-religion.
As for Hitler being Roman Catholic...much less devout...hardly. Respectfully suggest you ignore Daniel Goldhagen and move on to some more scholarly works, if you haven't already.
The Big Names of the 20th century all applied the secular ideology of the times (eugenics, atheism, etc.) which is why secularism has a bad name in the first place... Not to sound patronising, but if I may...Suggested reading: The Humanist Manifesto Vols. 1-3. As presented these are all Bad Ideas. They could be made to work but most attempts to date seem to have resulted in mass murder.
Christians as a group haven't killed "many millions." We can attribute quite a bit of shit to them (including the Inquisition, religious wars, Salem Witch Hunts, etc.) but I would be suprised if the death toll reached any millions.
The greatest murderers in history are and will probably remain secularists: the Holocaust (13 million), Stalin's Gulags (~60 million), Pol Pot (~5 million), etc.
Actually...I don't think you can explain away the Christian element in Lewis' stories (or Tolkein's, for that matter). It's not "a product of the times" nor an attempt to appease a certain audience... It is rather the point of the story, in fact. If that sort of thing turns you off, then by all means, you are invited not to watch it.