How come we don't ask this question? Can we get rid of the layers of useless HR bureaucracy?
It's not asked much because the answer is no.
Control in employment (and government) extends top down, not bottom up. Most places, if you even attempt it as bottom up, you're likely to be out on the street, starving.
If you don't want to be a controlled resource, then you have three options.
1: Strike out on your own. This is very hard, but it can be done. I did it and was successful at it. I retired reasonably early (in my early 40's) and have been enjoying myself since. I did it without a college degree, and got a good deal of it done prior to the Internet. If I had had the Internet available in those early days, I would have saved a lot on textbooks.:) Basically, this is "if you want it done your way, you need to be the boss."
2: Find the means to search until you find the very rare exception to the rule where the idea of actually doing good work is integral to the operation, and get them to hire you. This type of job search is expensive, slow, unlikely to succeed (there are very few such operations, comparatively speaking), and it also means that you still probably have to navigate the idiotic irrelevancies HR throws up on a constant basis. They still may not do things your way, but they may be using methodology that works well and you can at least live with.
3: Move into a field where this stuff isn't a cause of going home at night so annoyed your dog avoids you.
Say what you will about lawsuits in America but they sure do work great for cases like this.
US lawsuits sort of one-third-work, when they work. Lawyers benefit, and complainants benefit of the remainder after the lawyer's take their cut if they manage to defeat the system, which certainly isn't a given. There's also no guarantee that any images awarded or recompense offered will be in the range of appropriate, as this US case shows.
Even if a large award (or any award) is given, it rarely affects the agency at fault in any way. All such awards come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The policeman's salary is not affected in the slightest, nor the judges, nor the prosecutor's.
Because of this, there's little to no corrective value to a lawsuit.
Same thing for the next level up, legislation. When legislators write laws that break things and/or are wrongful, they aren't held to account for it. Whereas if you break a law, the gears of (in)justice are quite capable of, and very likely will, grind you into unrecognizable mush. Job, family, friends, savings, reputation... everything.
It's nice to hold power; it's even nicer when you're above consequences for your actions. Welcome to America, land of the oligarchy.
The number of member/AC posts per story on slashdot has been dropping rapidly, while posting systems with decent post editing, modern character representation, and 90's-era amenities like decent code blocks, lists, images and democratic up-modding proliferate around us.
The only question is, will the slashdot owners address this before the site becomes a completely forgotten backwater?
Okay, there is one more question: Do they even have anyone who could fix it?
If you only get rid of setting the clocks forward in spring, without getting rid of setting the clocks back in fall, you're gonna have serious problems after a couple years.
What? No. Let's make a bet. A hundred bucks says you come back twenty four years from now, you'll see our clocks aren't off at all.
If your house is on fire, you get a bucket. You don't give the Joker an unlimited supply of napalm, some matches, and point him at your front door.
You just don't get that many people voted "against" Hillary, and she was such a horrifying person that they could vote for even Trump.
I get that they were so bewildered by right wing agitprop and the sabotage that Comey engaged in just before the vote that they ended up feeling that way. I also get that this was both a highly inaccurate representation of what was really going on, and that now, post-error, confirmation bias drives people to claim they were justified when it is patently obvious that they were not. Rational behavior is not generally the rule of the day when someone has committed a huge screwup, a fact Trump voters now must eventually face.
I have often discussed Clinton's shortcomings, which are many. As are those of the system she operates within in the usual manner of a bought-and-paid for politician. But compared to Trump who is both an idiot and a threat to the country's ultimate stability, she's a genius and a patriot. Voting for Trump "because Clinton" inevitably means you didn't understand one or the other of the two candidates, or possibly both. Some of that is because of crazytarded activity on the part of Drudge, Breitbart, Fox News and so forth. But some of it is because people were too lazy to do their own fact checking. And some, of course, because the Gaussian goes quite a distance to the left before "you can't vote" shows up as a differentiator.
Barring impeachment, which really isn't all that likely, we're in for a minimum of two years of continuing lies, idiotic behavior, and structural damage to the system that will reach into people lives and do very serious harm -- as it has already been doing.
Likely it'll get fixed, inasmuch as (a) Trump lost the actual vote, only gaining office because of the duty-abrogating machinations of the electoral college, which provides us with the incontrovertible fact that the majority of people were against him becoming president; and (b) at this point, no one is guessing if Trump is as big an idiot in real life office as the idiot he was playing on television. Now there is no doubt. So odds are excellent that there's going to be quite a backlash come 2018.
But it's still going to be a rough couple of years.
In other news, a laboratory at the NYU Langone Medical Center was today discovered to have been filled with a randomly created strain of baker's yeast that expresses a profound affinity for human flesh. No sign of any of the Medical Center lab personnel were found, and all are presumed lost.
People aren't just emotionally invested, they had to compromise their ideals regarding decency
That requires an assumption that they had ideals regarding decency which required compromise. More likely, their ideals of decency fit right in with taking healthcare away from sick people, raising the prices at big-box stores, bombing / invading anyone handy, telling women what they may and may not do with their own bodies, controlling who uses what bathroom because (cough) "decency", interfering with personal liberties, pushing their particular brand of superstition on everyone else... and so forth.
"Ideal" is not a synonym for "good." It just means circumstances that are optimally congruent with the views of the idealist. That can be very bad indeed.
For example:
o "Ideally, we'd kill all the Muslims" o "Ideally, women would be at home, either barefoot and pregnant, or virgin" o "Ideally everyone would believe in the bible" o "Ideally, there would be prayer in schools"
...those are ideals. Those are ideals that led people to vote for Trump and a large number of people in congress. The people that hold those ideals won't need to compromise them at all in order to maintain their current outlook.
TL;DR: One person's ideals of decency are not any kind of guarantee that the next person's will be even remotely similar.
With over 1 billion users, it's a major platform that web developers have to consider. In fact, with Chrome's regular additions and changes, developers have to keep up to ensure they are taking advantage of everything available.
Web developers: You should be avoiding non-standard browser capabilities like the plague. Period.
And in Google's case, where they have a solid record of abandoning projects many people depend upon at the drop of a virtual hat, you're taking a significant risk if you hitch your cart to their projects
Chrome's non-standard bits can be reasonably described as the ActiveX of this particular time period.
As Dr. Frank N. Furter has said: "Do you want them to see you... LIKE THIS???"
If you really think these things are valuable and should be supported, the smart thing to do is to work to see them become standards, wait for the resulting standards to be supported by all the major players, and then use them.
"that's no moon orbiting around the earth, that's a planet..."
I go with where the centroid of gravity is. If we have A and B that are both large enough to pull themselves into spheroids as above, and they are orbiting each other, but the centroid is inside B, then A is a moon and B is a planet. If the centroid is inside A, then B is a moon, and A is a planet. If the centroid is outside both, then both are planets and we have a sister planet system.
All in the spirit that everyone gets a participation medal;^)
So... each of these objects is a special butterfly? Is that what you're telling me?
Okay, just so long as they aren't defined as teapots, because that would really foul up some of my atheist arguments.
No deleterious effects of radiation could be observed in locations where radiological doses were less than or equal to 5 rad/year. Where doses between 5 and 400 rad/year were received, radiation effects were 'ecologically masked,' meaning that adverse effects on individual organisms were observed but no changes in populations or ecosystems occurred. Where doses were >400 rad/year, damaging effects on populations and communities occurred.
Average yearly (300 mars days) radiation levels GCR dose rate at Gale Crater on Mars:.21 mGy*, (.021 rem) per day, or (365 *.021 to account for our reference which is per earth year) = ~7.6 rem/earthYear.
I think difficult to type is probably anti-security actually when it comes to password managers. It means almost certainly you going to be moving the plain text from your password manager to your clipboard which multiple processes have access to read.
Not if you're maintaining your passwords in a notebook (which most people who don't want an additional computer on their desk should be doing if they want secure storage of multiple passwords in typical circumstances where the computer itself is the vector for all likely compromises) or if they're maintained on a non-network connected device, which is how I do it.
It's a given that "lazy practice" and "good password practice" are wholly incompatible with one another. As a corollary to this, your average person is unlikely to ever pursue good password practice. You can't help those who won't be, or can't be, helped.
But if you actually need good security, you (and anyone who depends on your management of data you have responsibility for) better make absolutely certain that "lazy practice" isn't a dominating characteristic.
Assuming Network app A has an RCE but is running unprivileged its not going to able to read memory of your Password Manager
Well, if it ever comes about that privilege escalation and MMU compromise and left-over uninitialized memory fragment reading and tapping interprocess comms such that access to your password manager "as you" are all impossible, sure. Would you gamble on that being the case? I sure wouldn't.
we classified Pluto as a planet, for about 76 years, and then changed our minds on what a planet actually was.
And by "we", you mean, "some people", because there are (and probably always will be) a whole bunch of us out here who just laugh when some committee tries to claim that Pluto isn't a planet.
Planet is an arbitrary descriptor. Pre- or post-committee. I'll keep my descriptor; they can keep theirs.
FWIW (which is something to me, and likely nothing to anyone else) this is the heart of my descriptor:
If it primarily orbits a star, and has characteristics such that the main mass has formed a spheroid and it will remain that way barring impact with something or being subject to radiation above the melting point of its solids, it's a planet. If a natural object orbits a star but will not form a sphere on its own, it's a comet or asteroid, depending on behavior (ablative or not, respectively.) If it primarily orbits a planet, it's a moon, regardless of other characteristics. If it is not orbiting a planet or a star, it is a free object; e.g. a free planet, a free asteroid, a free comet. If it is undergoing fusion, it is a star; if the fusion fire was lit, but is now out, we have a dead star, the rest of the usual classifications for the various types of stars apply as per usual. If the components of a moon, planet, asteroid, comet, star, habitat or device were assembled by an intelligence, then the prefix "artificial" applies; if an artificial object is orbiting a moon or a planet or an asteroid or a comet, then the prefix "satellite" also applies. I don't use "satellite" as a synonym for natural objects.
So as I see it, Pluto is, was, and likely always will be a planet.
If I were involved in one or more of the astro sciences, I'd probably feel more constrained with regard to whatever is the formal definition of the specific scientific domain. But I am not. So I don't.:)
When people say Pluto is [other than a planet], my mind just translates that to "is a planet." Kind of like when most people say "government", my mind translates that directly into "organized crime."
Because the most useful concepts describe what you're looking at in such a way as you get an accurate perception of what they are. The current non-planet trend for Pluto doesn't do that for me.
> In your post, I read an assumption that a physically secure password tracker implies secure passwords.
It does. If you aren't using secure passwords, and anyone at all can get at your system, you have nothing. Doesn't matter how securely you keep the password "password." So strong passwords are inherent to the discussion.
Personally speaking, inasmuch as I would never keep my passwords on the system they are being used for or which has any kind of WAN access, and that I use strong passwords, "difficult to type" is also inherent. But it's a pretty lame consideration. If you're too lazy to type a difficult password, you're probably already insecure on levels that are utterly trivial to compromise.
There are other ultra-basic considerations as well: passwords need to be unique, they need to be unrelated to anything about you and yours and your employment and the task at hand, they need to be long, etc. Then there are other high end considerations, such as Faraday cages, true random number sources, encryption mechanisms, etc.
To really cover all the issues would take a long and very well-written book, and someone actually comprehending everything they read in it, and able to synthesize proper application of everything relevant therein. Which is why I said -- several times -- that consulting a professional is the way to go.
What I was trying to do is show how deep it is without actually going deep. On reflection, even that is kind of hopeless.
The CIP placed a potato inside a "specially constructed CubeSat contained environment" that simulates Mars temperature, air pressure, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels.
Pretty sure that without also accurately emulating the radiation environment, this isn't even close to being definitive. Perhaps they did and TFS didn't mention it. I did not, of course, read TFA.:)
If you're physically secure, you can use a simple notebook. This is unhackable from the network, and allows you to keep distinct passwords for everything. You can also use a separate desktop with no network communications and a password manager in this case, but of course that's much more expensive and generally requires more desk space. Backups become an issue as well. Whereas a notebook... other than physical disaster like fire or flood, quite robust. A phone is network connected whether you want it to be or not, whether the phone number is active or not, whether it's in airplane mode or not. State actors (and highly sophisticated private ones) can get into any even slightly recent phone that still has antennas and a live battery. So don't use a phone. Of course, if your computer is hacked, then any password you type in after the hack should be considered immediately compromised, because it probably is.
If you're not physically secure, but are concerned about real security and on a low or zero budget, then optimally, you won't be surfing all over the place, and will limit the number of passwords you need to the places you actually need to go. Then you can probably hold them in your own memory.
If you can't do that, then you may want to consider a robust safe, or a desk with professional level security, which basically means, it has a safe in it that can't be gotten out of it without making a noticeable disturbance. An alarm system backing this up is a good idea.
If you can't arrange for a safe, then we're down to password managers. The problem with a password manager is that typically everything depends upon a single access sequence; so in this case, you'd better be sure that your access to the manager is quite difficult. Which is annoying. But still best practice. You also need to hope there isn't some kind of back door that whoever you are concerned about has access to. Personally, I don't put much stock in such a hope. Admittedly, I'm a cynic.
It's worth talking about what "physically secure" means here. In the case of most law-abiding individuals, no one cares enough to ever come to your place and physically access your passwords. You are secure by default from external threats. Although you should consider family and friends. If there is any actual reason to worry about external threats, then you're part of this next case regarding physical security:
In the case of a person or organization with access to serious computing resources or valuable data, physical security means robust physical locks at the very least, escalating through guards, alarm systems, timed access, and so forth. You should consult professionals if you want this to really be effective. Protip: If you think you know how to get this handled, that's more likely a sign that you really should consult professionals than it is that you don't need them.
Network security for valuable data is also a very good idea if it can be implemented. This means that the network that the data is on, isn't linked to any network that connects to the WAN, and of course is not physically accessible to anyone not authorized to use it.
Large data sets with very low access rates can be airgapped by humans; request comes in for data, properly vetted human authorizes it, physically fetches the data from an off-WAN system, and moves it physically to the on-WAN system. This is expensive and slow, but serves very well to prevent wholesale loss of the large data set.
If your data is only used in-house, then neither the data source or the clients should be WAN connected, and users should be vetted and physically access-limited to whatever degree is required.
Most of this stuff is not really too hard, and you can of course take a swing at it yourself, but if it's other people's data you're dealing with rather than only putting yourself at risk... I still say consult professionals. And be prepared to spend money like it's water.
When you say the tube was not glowing as bright, are you saying the cathode (orange glow) was dimmer, or that the glass (blue glow) was dimmer, or do you see a haze around the inner structure that was different?
Each of these could indicate a different potential problem; your wife may have swapped tubes without you knowing, which may be an indicator of insufficient performance on your part (she could simply be too shy to tell you); or, she may have been... using... that tube in her own, er, amp, and in which case you should confront her and tell her that you will be happy to use the tube on her behalf and that you are also willing to rotate tubes which may serve to keep her socket firmly plugged at all times while keeping the glow reasonably evenly distributed through all your performances; and finally, it may well be that... and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this... that may be another man's tube altogether. In which case you should consider seeing a technician -- this kind of imbalance often leads directly to involuntary tube changing, which may not be satisfactory to either party. You may simply have to replace all four tubes and see if she's okay with that.
There's no evolutionary need for nine hours a week
Evolution is not always (or even, often) the arbiter of normal human behavior. Sexuality is a complex personal and social component. It can't be reduced to evolutionary talking points.
most people informally use the word 'addiction' to imply that moderation has departed the building
Imprecision and inaccuracy are rampant in the population at large. That is one reason (though not the only one) why we see such words as addiction being profoundly misused. However, even were it so that "moderation has left the building" was what addiction meant, and that was the intent of the above post, the poster would still have been just as wrong, and in just the same way. Nine hours out of 112 hours (16 hours times seven days, allowing for 8 hours of sleep per day, which may be generous) is about 8% of one's waking hours. Which is to say, 92% of your (waking) time you're doing something else. To describe this as either "moderation has left the building" or "addiction" is simply ludicrous.
Doesn't mean you, or anyone else, has to stretch to hit such a mark. Or back off to hit it. It just means characterizing it as "addiction" or "lack of moderation" are both absurd.
How many people do you think spend nine (or more) hours watching television in the course of a week? Using their phone? Bicycling? Dancing? Playing chess? Are they "addicted" in either the accurate sense or in the sense of your proposed placeholder for lack of moderation? Doubtful. Most are just doing what they like to do. Which is not even close to a reasonable take on what addiction means, either when used correctly, or in some vague, inaccurate sense that might be in casual use.
There's also a question of which activities might actually require or benefit from moderation, and why. Consensual, informed sexual activity isn't a good candidate for this at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not asked much because the answer is no.
Control in employment (and government) extends top down, not bottom up. Most places, if you even attempt it as bottom up, you're likely to be out on the street, starving.
If you don't want to be a controlled resource, then you have three options.
1: Strike out on your own. This is very hard, but it can be done. I did it and was successful at it. I retired reasonably early (in my early 40's) and have been enjoying myself since. I did it without a college degree, and got a good deal of it done prior to the Internet. If I had had the Internet available in those early days, I would have saved a lot on textbooks. :) Basically, this is "if you want it done your way, you need to be the boss."
2: Find the means to search until you find the very rare exception to the rule where the idea of actually doing good work is integral to the operation, and get them to hire you. This type of job search is expensive, slow, unlikely to succeed (there are very few such operations, comparatively speaking), and it also means that you still probably have to navigate the idiotic irrelevancies HR throws up on a constant basis. They still may not do things your way, but they may be using methodology that works well and you can at least live with.
3: Move into a field where this stuff isn't a cause of going home at night so annoyed your dog avoids you.
US lawsuits sort of one-third-work, when they work. Lawyers benefit, and complainants benefit of the remainder after the lawyer's take their cut if they manage to defeat the system, which certainly isn't a given. There's also no guarantee that any images awarded or recompense offered will be in the range of appropriate, as this US case shows.
Even if a large award (or any award) is given, it rarely affects the agency at fault in any way. All such awards come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The policeman's salary is not affected in the slightest, nor the judges, nor the prosecutor's.
Because of this, there's little to no corrective value to a lawsuit.
Same thing for the next level up, legislation. When legislators write laws that break things and/or are wrongful, they aren't held to account for it. Whereas if you break a law, the gears of (in)justice are quite capable of, and very likely will, grind you into unrecognizable mush. Job, family, friends, savings, reputation... everything.
It's nice to hold power; it's even nicer when you're above consequences for your actions. Welcome to America, land of the oligarchy.
The number of member/AC posts per story on slashdot has been dropping rapidly, while posting systems with decent post editing, modern character representation, and 90's-era amenities like decent code blocks, lists, images and democratic up-modding proliferate around us.
The only question is, will the slashdot owners address this before the site becomes a completely forgotten backwater?
Okay, there is one more question: Do they even have anyone who could fix it?
What? No. Let's make a bet. A hundred bucks says you come back twenty four years from now, you'll see our clocks aren't off at all.
Check and mate, sonny.
My remarks were limited (perhaps not obviously so, but nonetheless limited) to the ideals related to driving the act of voting for Trump.
My apologies for any unintended implication that this makes a person "all bad."
If your house is on fire, you get a bucket. You don't give the Joker an unlimited supply of napalm, some matches, and point him at your front door.
I get that they were so bewildered by right wing agitprop and the sabotage that Comey engaged in just before the vote that they ended up feeling that way. I also get that this was both a highly inaccurate representation of what was really going on, and that now, post-error, confirmation bias drives people to claim they were justified when it is patently obvious that they were not. Rational behavior is not generally the rule of the day when someone has committed a huge screwup, a fact Trump voters now must eventually face.
I have often discussed Clinton's shortcomings, which are many. As are those of the system she operates within in the usual manner of a bought-and-paid for politician. But compared to Trump who is both an idiot and a threat to the country's ultimate stability, she's a genius and a patriot. Voting for Trump "because Clinton" inevitably means you didn't understand one or the other of the two candidates, or possibly both. Some of that is because of crazytarded activity on the part of Drudge, Breitbart, Fox News and so forth. But some of it is because people were too lazy to do their own fact checking. And some, of course, because the Gaussian goes quite a distance to the left before "you can't vote" shows up as a differentiator.
Barring impeachment, which really isn't all that likely, we're in for a minimum of two years of continuing lies, idiotic behavior, and structural damage to the system that will reach into people lives and do very serious harm -- as it has already been doing.
Likely it'll get fixed, inasmuch as (a) Trump lost the actual vote, only gaining office because of the duty-abrogating machinations of the electoral college, which provides us with the incontrovertible fact that the majority of people were against him becoming president; and (b) at this point, no one is guessing if Trump is as big an idiot in real life office as the idiot he was playing on television. Now there is no doubt. So odds are excellent that there's going to be quite a backlash come 2018.
But it's still going to be a rough couple of years.
You trying to get a rise out of us? Because that was really only half-baked, no matter how you slice it.
Just kidding. I'm only here to butter you up.
In other news, a laboratory at the NYU Langone Medical Center was today discovered to have been filled with a randomly created strain of baker's yeast that expresses a profound affinity for human flesh. No sign of any of the Medical Center lab personnel were found, and all are presumed lost.
There will be a memorial bake sale on Sunday.
From TFS:
Editing, the use of which are have not been proved safe with Slashdot Summaries.
FTFTFE
That requires an assumption that they had ideals regarding decency which required compromise. More likely, their ideals of decency fit right in with taking healthcare away from sick people, raising the prices at big-box stores, bombing / invading anyone handy, telling women what they may and may not do with their own bodies, controlling who uses what bathroom because (cough) "decency", interfering with personal liberties, pushing their particular brand of superstition on everyone else... and so forth.
"Ideal" is not a synonym for "good." It just means circumstances that are optimally congruent with the views of the idealist. That can be very bad indeed.
For example:
o "Ideally, we'd kill all the Muslims"
o "Ideally, women would be at home, either barefoot and pregnant, or virgin"
o "Ideally everyone would believe in the bible"
o "Ideally, there would be prayer in schools"
...those are ideals. Those are ideals that led people to vote for Trump and a large number of people in congress. The people that hold those ideals won't need to compromise them at all in order to maintain their current outlook.
TL;DR: One person's ideals of decency are not any kind of guarantee that the next person's will be even remotely similar.
Web developers: You should be avoiding non-standard browser capabilities like the plague. Period.
And in Google's case, where they have a solid record of abandoning projects many people depend upon at the drop of a virtual hat, you're taking a significant risk if you hitch your cart to their projects
Chrome's non-standard bits can be reasonably described as the ActiveX of this particular time period.
As Dr. Frank N. Furter has said: "Do you want them to see you... LIKE THIS???"
If you really think these things are valuable and should be supported, the smart thing to do is to work to see them become standards, wait for the resulting standards to be supported by all the major players, and then use them.
I go with where the centroid of gravity is. If we have A and B that are both large enough to pull themselves into spheroids as above, and they are orbiting each other, but the centroid is inside B, then A is a moon and B is a planet. If the centroid is inside A, then B is a moon, and A is a planet. If the centroid is outside both, then both are planets and we have a sister planet system.
So... each of these objects is a special butterfly? Is that what you're telling me?
Okay, just so long as they aren't defined as teapots, because that would really foul up some of my atheist arguments.
That'e because there was... and wasn't... a cat in that tree.
Data from the Chernobyl incident:
Cited source
Average yearly (300 mars days) radiation levels GCR dose rate at Gale Crater on Mars: .21 mGy*, (.021 rem) per day, or (365 * .021 to account for our reference which is per earth year) = ~7.6 rem/earthYear.
*Cited source
Handy conversion calculator
So yeah, if I put all that together properly, not as much of an issue as I'd thought at all.
Not if you're maintaining your passwords in a notebook (which most people who don't want an additional computer on their desk should be doing if they want secure storage of multiple passwords in typical circumstances where the computer itself is the vector for all likely compromises) or if they're maintained on a non-network connected device, which is how I do it.
It's a given that "lazy practice" and "good password practice" are wholly incompatible with one another. As a corollary to this, your average person is unlikely to ever pursue good password practice. You can't help those who won't be, or can't be, helped.
But if you actually need good security, you (and anyone who depends on your management of data you have responsibility for) better make absolutely certain that "lazy practice" isn't a dominating characteristic.
Well, if it ever comes about that privilege escalation and MMU compromise and left-over uninitialized memory fragment reading and tapping interprocess comms such that access to your password manager "as you" are all impossible, sure. Would you gamble on that being the case? I sure wouldn't.
And by "we", you mean, "some people", because there are (and probably always will be) a whole bunch of us out here who just laugh when some committee tries to claim that Pluto isn't a planet.
Planet is an arbitrary descriptor. Pre- or post-committee. I'll keep my descriptor; they can keep theirs.
FWIW (which is something to me, and likely nothing to anyone else) this is the heart of my descriptor:
If it primarily orbits a star, and has characteristics such that the main mass has formed a spheroid and it will remain that way barring impact with something or being subject to radiation above the melting point of its solids, it's a planet. If a natural object orbits a star but will not form a sphere on its own, it's a comet or asteroid, depending on behavior (ablative or not, respectively.) If it primarily orbits a planet, it's a moon, regardless of other characteristics. If it is not orbiting a planet or a star, it is a free object; e.g. a free planet, a free asteroid, a free comet. If it is undergoing fusion, it is a star; if the fusion fire was lit, but is now out, we have a dead star, the rest of the usual classifications for the various types of stars apply as per usual. If the components of a moon, planet, asteroid, comet, star, habitat or device were assembled by an intelligence, then the prefix "artificial" applies; if an artificial object is orbiting a moon or a planet or an asteroid or a comet, then the prefix "satellite" also applies. I don't use "satellite" as a synonym for natural objects.
So as I see it, Pluto is, was, and likely always will be a planet.
If I were involved in one or more of the astro sciences, I'd probably feel more constrained with regard to whatever is the formal definition of the specific scientific domain. But I am not. So I don't. :)
When people say Pluto is [other than a planet], my mind just translates that to "is a planet." Kind of like when most people say "government", my mind translates that directly into "organized crime."
Because the most useful concepts describe what you're looking at in such a way as you get an accurate perception of what they are. The current non-planet trend for Pluto doesn't do that for me.
Well, you might think so. But it's not always as easy as all that.
Yeah. Besides, the only thing notable about this is that there might be a trial.
The rule in business and government isn't "don't be corrupt." It's don't get caught.
> In your post, I read an assumption that a physically secure password tracker implies secure passwords.
It does. If you aren't using secure passwords, and anyone at all can get at your system, you have nothing. Doesn't matter how securely you keep the password "password." So strong passwords are inherent to the discussion.
Personally speaking, inasmuch as I would never keep my passwords on the system they are being used for or which has any kind of WAN access, and that I use strong passwords, "difficult to type" is also inherent. But it's a pretty lame consideration. If you're too lazy to type a difficult password, you're probably already insecure on levels that are utterly trivial to compromise.
There are other ultra-basic considerations as well: passwords need to be unique, they need to be unrelated to anything about you and yours and your employment and the task at hand, they need to be long, etc. Then there are other high end considerations, such as Faraday cages, true random number sources, encryption mechanisms, etc.
To really cover all the issues would take a long and very well-written book, and someone actually comprehending everything they read in it, and able to synthesize proper application of everything relevant therein. Which is why I said -- several times -- that consulting a professional is the way to go.
What I was trying to do is show how deep it is without actually going deep. On reflection, even that is kind of hopeless.
So again: consult professionals.
Pretty sure that without also accurately emulating the radiation environment, this isn't even close to being definitive. Perhaps they did and TFS didn't mention it. I did not, of course, read TFA. :)
There are two cases, physically secure, and not:
If you're physically secure, you can use a simple notebook. This is unhackable from the network, and allows you to keep distinct passwords for everything. You can also use a separate desktop with no network communications and a password manager in this case, but of course that's much more expensive and generally requires more desk space. Backups become an issue as well. Whereas a notebook... other than physical disaster like fire or flood, quite robust. A phone is network connected whether you want it to be or not, whether the phone number is active or not, whether it's in airplane mode or not. State actors (and highly sophisticated private ones) can get into any even slightly recent phone that still has antennas and a live battery. So don't use a phone. Of course, if your computer is hacked, then any password you type in after the hack should be considered immediately compromised, because it probably is.
If you're not physically secure, but are concerned about real security and on a low or zero budget, then optimally, you won't be surfing all over the place, and will limit the number of passwords you need to the places you actually need to go. Then you can probably hold them in your own memory.
If you can't do that, then you may want to consider a robust safe, or a desk with professional level security, which basically means, it has a safe in it that can't be gotten out of it without making a noticeable disturbance. An alarm system backing this up is a good idea.
If you can't arrange for a safe, then we're down to password managers. The problem with a password manager is that typically everything depends upon a single access sequence; so in this case, you'd better be sure that your access to the manager is quite difficult. Which is annoying. But still best practice. You also need to hope there isn't some kind of back door that whoever you are concerned about has access to. Personally, I don't put much stock in such a hope. Admittedly, I'm a cynic.
It's worth talking about what "physically secure" means here. In the case of most law-abiding individuals, no one cares enough to ever come to your place and physically access your passwords. You are secure by default from external threats. Although you should consider family and friends. If there is any actual reason to worry about external threats, then you're part of this next case regarding physical security:
In the case of a person or organization with access to serious computing resources or valuable data, physical security means robust physical locks at the very least, escalating through guards, alarm systems, timed access, and so forth. You should consult professionals if you want this to really be effective. Protip: If you think you know how to get this handled, that's more likely a sign that you really should consult professionals than it is that you don't need them.
Network security for valuable data is also a very good idea if it can be implemented. This means that the network that the data is on, isn't linked to any network that connects to the WAN, and of course is not physically accessible to anyone not authorized to use it.
Large data sets with very low access rates can be airgapped by humans; request comes in for data, properly vetted human authorizes it, physically fetches the data from an off-WAN system, and moves it physically to the on-WAN system. This is expensive and slow, but serves very well to prevent wholesale loss of the large data set.
If your data is only used in-house, then neither the data source or the clients should be WAN connected, and users should be vetted and physically access-limited to whatever degree is required.
Most of this stuff is not really too hard, and you can of course take a swing at it yourself, but if it's other people's data you're dealing with rather than only putting yourself at risk... I still say consult professionals. And be prepared to spend money like it's water.
From the other end: the very le
Dear OSL Meow:
When you say the tube was not glowing as bright, are you saying the cathode (orange glow) was dimmer, or that the glass (blue glow) was dimmer, or do you see a haze around the inner structure that was different?
Each of these could indicate a different potential problem; your wife may have swapped tubes without you knowing, which may be an indicator of insufficient performance on your part (she could simply be too shy to tell you); or, she may have been... using... that tube in her own, er, amp, and in which case you should confront her and tell her that you will be happy to use the tube on her behalf and that you are also willing to rotate tubes which may serve to keep her socket firmly plugged at all times while keeping the glow reasonably evenly distributed through all your performances; and finally, it may well be that... and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this... that may be another man's tube altogether. In which case you should consider seeing a technician -- this kind of imbalance often leads directly to involuntary tube changing, which may not be satisfactory to either party. You may simply have to replace all four tubes and see if she's okay with that.
I hope you can work this out,
Sincerely, Abby
yeah, thanks. :)
Evolution is not always (or even, often) the arbiter of normal human behavior. Sexuality is a complex personal and social component. It can't be reduced to evolutionary talking points.
Imprecision and inaccuracy are rampant in the population at large. That is one reason (though not the only one) why we see such words as addiction being profoundly misused. However, even were it so that "moderation has left the building" was what addiction meant, and that was the intent of the above post, the poster would still have been just as wrong, and in just the same way. Nine hours out of 112 hours (16 hours times seven days, allowing for 8 hours of sleep per day, which may be generous) is about 8% of one's waking hours. Which is to say, 92% of your (waking) time you're doing something else. To describe this as either "moderation has left the building" or "addiction" is simply ludicrous.
Doesn't mean you, or anyone else, has to stretch to hit such a mark. Or back off to hit it. It just means characterizing it as "addiction" or "lack of moderation" are both absurd.
How many people do you think spend nine (or more) hours watching television in the course of a week? Using their phone? Bicycling? Dancing? Playing chess? Are they "addicted" in either the accurate sense or in the sense of your proposed placeholder for lack of moderation? Doubtful. Most are just doing what they like to do. Which is not even close to a reasonable take on what addiction means, either when used correctly, or in some vague, inaccurate sense that might be in casual use.
There's also a question of which activities might actually require or benefit from moderation, and why. Consensual, informed sexual activity isn't a good candidate for this at all.
You must have a low capacity for getting a charge out of my remarks. Too much already on your plate?