What is the intended purpose of an article like this?
390 BILLION!!!! TONS!!!!! of snow is mellllllllllllting!
Who the fuck cares? Tell me how much MORE or LESS snow is melting in any given year. Of course the total number is going to be staggeringly huge, this is a fucking PLANET, not your back yard.
But the staggeringly huge number is being used for a purpose. It would appear to be designed to get us hysterical... but what is the end game?
Many people react negatively to hysteria inducing claims but many ignorant people assume they are motivating people to help them in their cause. Is this a counter-productive article or is it just sowing hysteria to cloud the reality of what is happening to the climate?
Articles like this are just plain shit... even if they do manage to generate page views somehow. This is the extent of my participation in what will be a shitshow in the comments section. Numerous otherwise intelligent people will act utterly stupid and display their blindness for everyone but themselves to see while others will argue for nuclear power and... fuck it.
I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.
The language mangling is intentional. There are weird people out there with weird motivations that involve people other than themselves. There are some really insane people on this planet.
This isn't responsive to my question. The information he gave to the press didn't directly endanger countless millions of people.
You should make that claim about endangerment to the US Government because they sure believe he did endanger countless millions. But I do see your point, kind of. My point was that the NSA took reasonable measures to protect their data and the head of the NSA deserves no flack/legal culpability for the fact that Snowden walked away with the crown jewels. (Well, they do, but for entirely different reasons). I think that is responsive to your question. If not, I can come up with other examples but this example clearly demonstrates the idea of culpability.
Well sure. If you follow standards and/or procedures, you are covered. If all you are doing is checkbox security, someone will get in, but you can at least point to all of those checked boxes and absolve yourself from legal responsibility.
I welcome any evidence of this ringing true WRT *ANY* major data breach.
I suspect you got lost somewhere along the way? We are discussing a *proposed* law that has not taken effect yet. There can be no legal penalties without a law to specify such, so of course there are no examples of a CEO being held accountable or not accountable. Yet.
I normally do not reply to Anonymous Coward, but I like your thinking: Apply all standards equally across the board.
What if the girl didn't bother to protect herself against rape? No mace, guns, knives. No martial arts training. Just dressing like a "slut" in public all day "asking for it"?
Well, she will likely "pay" for her negligence through getting raped. Is she supposed to be arrested or some financial related penalty? The penalty *IS* the rape.
Since you applied your logic like this, I am assuming that you think I am excusing the rapist. No. No I am not. The rapist will hopefully end up in prison with a full sentence to serve.
In some countries if you get raped you go to jail or worse. There are people on earth numbering in the millions who don't see a problem with this.
Yep. I recall seeing that 12 year old girl get stoned (the bad kind) by Al Shabab because she was raped. I do see a problem with that, but I am unsure why you thought that relevant to bring up.
I find it interesting how the theory of holding victims responsible for criminal acts against them appears to be arbitrary based entirely on subjective whims and sensibilities of the beholder.
Are we having a conversation or have you gone off the deep end here? Let's bring this a little closer to reality so we can discuss this coherently:
Let's say you left your 12 year old daughter with an adult friend of yours for a few weeks. You find out that your daughter was raped.
Would you be upset at your friend for letting your daughter go out virtually undressed and walk down dark alleys in bad neighborhoods alone? Why or why not? Would you blame your friend for her rape? Why or why not?
You didn't have enough deadbolts and failed to reinforce door frame. It's your fault you were robbed.
I like it. More "applying standards equally" here.
You are wrong here. If you put in a deadbolt and reinforced the frame on your door, there was no negligence.
It's your fault you got shot. You failed to protect your home against bullets even though you knew full well other shootings have taken place in the neighborhood.
Um... you do realize that we are discussing culpability due to negligence?
Fortunately I don't suffer from the same mental deficiency many of you appear to be suffering from.
Well... that is true. You are not suffering from the same mental deficiency, but there is a deficiency there.
It is quite easy for me to say sending the victim of a crime to jail for functionally being a victim is fucked up PERIOD. No matter what the circumstances this is not even remotely acceptable behavior.
And... there is the proof.
We are discussing culpability due to negligence but you mixed it up with personal responsibility to yourself with all of the examples provided.
I honestly recommend you discover why you mixed it up this badly. It is a sign telling you how you are messed up. For your sake, I hope it is only because you are smoking too much weed.
I would be curious if anyone is able to cite just one single solitary instance of a major data breach where the company holding data was deemed to have "sufficient" safeguards in place and therefore wasn't held responsible for the attack.
Not a company, but Snowden did quite a number on the NSA. It wasn't their negligence that allowed him to do what he did.
Corporate examples are harder to come by because they don't advertise when they have been attacked.
Is there in reality a standard anyone can follow that would absolve them of responsibility if attack is successful anyway?
Well sure. If you follow standards and/or procedures, you are covered. If all you are doing is checkbox security, someone will get in, but you can at least point to all of those checked boxes and absolve yourself from legal responsibility.
If the standard in reality is that people (corporations are people my friend) are held liable for every transgression against them no matter what that's not something I can support.
Agreed. It is an impossible standard stating it like that. There are numerous security standards that you could subscribe to, such as FISMA, but to not subscribe to any standard is clear evidence of negligence.
Yes, there are things that kill you other than measles. The difference is that measles is pretty easily preventable - people just have to get vaccinated.
Another aspect of this that you should address to these fuckers: The more hosts that a virus can live in, the more mutations that will occur. This speeds up the evolution of the virus and can lead to a strain that is much more terrible than *mere* measles.
Even further than that, a virus is a "living" "creature" that can reproduce exponentially, and once it gets to a certain level of "presence" the risk increase exponentially because there are people who can not be vaccinated or that the vaccination just didn't work for them.
On the one hand, I get a creepy feeling when I am told that everyone needs to get something injected to them. On the other hand, I have learned what this is all about and agree that everyone should be vaccinated, even if it is done at gun point with them kicking and screaming like any other wild animal would.
What is insane about all of this is that some basic scientific knowledge and a 4 meter straight edge and a large body of water are all that is needed to *see* that Earth is round(ish) and you can even get pretty close to measuring the actual size. I did it myself when I was in the Navy and in the middle of the ocean, but it can be done from the shore:
Hold the straight edge over the horizon. Try to align the straight edge with the edge of the horizon. You can't. Why? Because the Earth is curved. Measure the difference between the straight edge and the horizon and with some simple math, you can get a rough measure of the size of the planet.
Without anything but some observations and some logic, you can also arrive at the Earth being round. This one is too long to describe for short attention span people but the essence is that round is the only acceptable shape for a planet of this size to be.
Ultimately, there is no way to decide that the planet is anything but round unless you believe that the Universe does not have universal principles that apply everywhere under all circumstances. Of course, once you hit "God did it", no amount of logic or reason will ever a/effect their "knowledge".
First of all new borns basically have no immune system. Vaccination before about 6 weeks is completely pointless
Nonsense. Newborns have a poorly developed immune system, but that's a far cry from "no immune system".
While technically correct (the best kind of correct!), your view was too narrow.
Here, let me clarify (in a non-hostile manner):
First of all new borns basically have no immune system.
I have bolded the relevant word. Be honest. Isn't it reasonable to equate "basically no immune system (functionality is a word that should have been added here for clarity, but the meaning is generally the same regardless)" to "Newborns have a poorly developed immune system"?
There are numerous different ways to word it. "basically none" and "poorly developed" really mean the same thing in this context.
It was not useful.
Your information was useful as was your ultimate point. On this one portion though, it seems rather nit-picky to bring it up because we can be certain that both statements are functionally the same.
It is not a bad analogy but it is being framed wrong. But let's work with the path you are going down:
But if a bank gets robbed, and the bank's customers' money is stolen, we don't put the bank manager in jail, we put the robber in jail. A corporation that got breached is far more like a robbed bank than it is a pickpocket.
What if the bank didn't bother to protect itself against robberies? No silent alarms, no policies and procedures, etc?
Sure, you can not "really" prevent a robbery, but you can limit the damage and you can limit the ease with which a bank can be robbed and you can limit the amount of expected success.
If a CEO of a bank decided that security was not important and failed to implement known-effective security measures, don't you think that CEO should be held responsible for their banks getting robbed?
Everything in this post except ONE thing is good, accurate, and relatable.
What about the engineers and technicians?
Fuck you you snivelling little shitstain.
The issue isn't with the hostility; although it is counter-productive. No, the issues is that you automatically dismiss ALL responsibility that the lower layer people have.
Everyone has a part to play here. The CEO is "where the buck stops" and the CEO and CIO should BOTH be held primarily accountable.
Regardless, a simple lowly engineer can also be egregiously negligent and they should be held accountable too if they are demonstrating willful negligence. None of this absolves the CEO and CIO, but everyone needs to be accountable; otherwise, the "downtrodden" (seriously, update your worldview) can just fuck over the CEO and entire organization without worrying about being held accountable.
Does that sound like Social Justice to you my fine warrior friend? If it does, you are working against your own fucking goals.;)
Movies and Television are separate markets. Television gets their money from advertisers, Movies get their money directly from individual consumers. Entirely different market forces at work; therefore, it is appropriate to treat them differently, even if they seem similar on the surface.
OOooooo. This is interesting. I am surprised because I wouldn't think there is much here:
I think I am seeing what the other person was driving at. Netflix is not an "open platform". I need to subscribe and I need to have an "approved device" whereas with a movie theater, I just buy a ticket and watch, nothing special needed from me.
A movie theater has to justify kicking me out, Netflix does not.
I am sure there is more to it than this, but there is a very real difference in access between a movie theater and Netflix.
Not that I agree or disagree with the final point, just that it is more nuanced than originally expected.
Look, this is real simple. I apologize for denying paths but not providing paths forward. This is how it works.
When there is a problem, examine yourself and how you can possibly e/affect the problem. Or, in other words, if the blame game must be played, play it against yourself.
Example that just happened: A section of people "need" a shared account. They had the account name and password on a post-it note hanging over numerous display devices that were visible (for certain definitions of visible) to the general public. I required that the password be changed and the post-its removed.
Seems simple enough and correct enough right? I went back to check on what was happening and found that the person changing the password made it 14 characters with obscure symbols and such.
*blink* *blink*
I told the guy that was wrong. That password will be on a post-it before the end of the day. I demonstrated how he should have done it by using an XKCD comic to demonstrate. https://xkcd.com/936/
Ultimately, shared accounts are not needed but I have decades of organically grown network crap to deal with and this particular section does have an issue that is solved by shared accounts. It will take a lot of time to work with this section, so rather than totally disrupting their work flow, I am dealing with the worst of their issues in a light-handed manner until I work with their upper management to re-engineer their work flow properly.
TL;DR, do what you can when you can. blaming others is merely an fruitless exercise designed to hide your own inadequacies. (DoTA and LoL players should take this to heart!)
You are getting caught up on one instance of the issue that I am discussing.
The issue is that people assign blame and then move on. Moving on does not solve the problem and blaming someone does not solve the problem. Solving the problem solves the problem.
How to solve this one? I can give you some ideas, but I am not an infinite genius. I don't have answers for everything. I do know that playing the blame game ensures that nothing will get solved and that is EXACTLY what this article is doing: playing the blame game. Pitting users against Security. This is not a game. There are issues. They need to be resolved. Who cares if the blame can be placed entirely on the users or if it can be blamed entirely on Security? If you need punishments, then fine, punish people... but punishing people will not solve the problem.
Users create problems. IT creates problems. Security creates problems.
Why don't we work on solving those problems rather than pitting everyone against each other? This article was a troll, full stop.
Bro, it is 47 fucking minutes long. I am NOT wasting that much time for a "payoff" that is not likely to occur.
Yes, systemd solves some problems. Yes, in some ways and from some perspectives, systemd is "better" than other init systems.
But, systemd is not just an init system and it doesn't play well with others since it is a silo. This is NOT the ideal init system and is so far from the ideal init system that this line of reasoning is a non-starter regardless of any other benefits or positives that systemd has.
The video you linked is not likely to change my understanding of systemd; therefore, I am not willing to waste 47 minutes only to find out that some guy found some neat and useful shit with systemd.
It should be noted that I am perfectly fine with you using systemd. Go with your bad self. Don't be surprised when I think you are an ignorant fool for doing so, but I will not stop you from being a fool. I will just laugh as suffer from the issues of yet another blind spot. (the blind spots can't be helped, nobody is omniscient and that is why systemd is the wrong answer to any question other than: what is the EXACT wrong way to do an init system)
This whole article is infused with the underlying idea that information must be curated for "our" benefit.
Fuck you.
Sincerely, The Internet
P.S. are there no articles to be placed on Slashdot that discuss technology? I am fucking tired of having social programming thrown at me day in and day out. Sure, the social programming articles are, ostensibly, about tech... but they are not about tech, they are about trying to make us think in particular ways with particular frames of reference. What the fuck? Where are my meds? I need to burn my mind so I am content with this shit.
That's the trick though, isn't it? Everyone knows that nuclear can be done right. TEPCO proves that people will NOT do it right. Same with water cooling or any other project a person might do.
Of course, the knee-jerk, programmed response is to prohibit doing any such thing rather than setting it up so that it has to be done correctly. Short sighted and stupid is how they like us.
Gosh, the hate here for VB6 was a force, but I too loved the language.
VB6 was fun, but it was non-deterministic. In certain situations, the output or behavior would not be repeatable. For many tasks, it was a suitable language/environment, but its lack of determinism made it an object of derision.
It is possible to love flawed things. It is possible despise those flaws. It is possible to experience both at the same time.
Aaaaaannnnnd, you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
you can't blame the users, IT is still at fault...
The whole point of the article was to stir up between IT and users. It is right there in the headline. This was not an article exploring how to fix any of this, it was a troll designed to get you to say what you just said. And you fell for it.
This article is so transparently a troll, that I think they allowed 14 year olds into the social programming department. They fucked up REAL bad. If people can see that they are being manipulated, they tend to rebel and become inoculated against further programming attempts.
Ah well, one transparent article will not bring down modern society as we know it, but if they keep fucking up like this, there will be no more levers to pull. They just burned one.
We basically don't have the knowledge on how to build a secure computer that most of the population can use while remaining connected to the Internet.
We do have the knowledge. We don't have the will. The NSA etc all have a vested interest in not having secure computing/communications. It costs a LOT of resources to design and implement computing/communications in a secure manner. It can be difficult for humans to behave in a secure manner. There are all sorts of incentives given by hostile parties for humans to act in an insecure manner (this article!).
No. Secure computing/communications is not going to happen, but we do actually have the knowledge.
If you are referring to the theoretical "perfect security", then, technically, you are correct; however, we don't live in a theoretical world and we do have the knowledge to make things, for all intents and purposes, secure.
I want to blame the technology companies a bit here;
On the bright side, you aren't wrong. On the dark side, you fell for this article hook, line, and sinker. It is a "troll" article to get people worked up over blame and here you are, casting about blame. It worked!:(
When trying to assign blame, reality never gets fully addressed and people stop thinking once the blame is assigned. None of this solves the actual issues, one of which you touched upon.
This is NOT how serious issues are discussed. Blame (and value judgements) is a game to be played AFTER reality has been dealt with and are assigning punishment/rewards. This game is NOT to be played before reality has been dealt with.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the intended purpose of an article like this?
390 BILLION!!!! TONS!!!!! of snow is mellllllllllllting!
Who the fuck cares? Tell me how much MORE or LESS snow is melting in any given year. Of course the total number is going to be staggeringly huge, this is a fucking PLANET, not your back yard.
But the staggeringly huge number is being used for a purpose. It would appear to be designed to get us hysterical... but what is the end game?
Many people react negatively to hysteria inducing claims but many ignorant people assume they are motivating people to help them in their cause. Is this a counter-productive article or is it just sowing hysteria to cloud the reality of what is happening to the climate?
Articles like this are just plain shit... even if they do manage to generate page views somehow. This is the extent of my participation in what will be a shitshow in the comments section. Numerous otherwise intelligent people will act utterly stupid and display their blindness for everyone but themselves to see while others will argue for nuclear power and ... fuck it.
I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.
The language mangling is intentional. There are weird people out there with weird motivations that involve people other than themselves. There are some really insane people on this planet.
If the report actually exonerated Trump and Co., it would be made public. The fact that it has not says volumes.
If the report actually implicated Trump and Co., it would be made public. The fact that it has not says volumes. ... just sayin'
(What is true forwards, should also be true in reverse)
This isn't responsive to my question. The information he gave to the press didn't directly endanger countless millions of people.
You should make that claim about endangerment to the US Government because they sure believe he did endanger countless millions. But I do see your point, kind of. My point was that the NSA took reasonable measures to protect their data and the head of the NSA deserves no flack/legal culpability for the fact that Snowden walked away with the crown jewels. (Well, they do, but for entirely different reasons). I think that is responsive to your question. If not, I can come up with other examples but this example clearly demonstrates the idea of culpability.
Well sure. If you follow standards and/or procedures, you are covered. If all you are doing is checkbox security, someone will get in, but you can at least point to all of those checked boxes and absolve yourself from legal responsibility.
I welcome any evidence of this ringing true WRT *ANY* major data breach.
I suspect you got lost somewhere along the way? We are discussing a *proposed* law that has not taken effect yet. There can be no legal penalties without a law to specify such, so of course there are no examples of a CEO being held accountable or not accountable. Yet.
I normally do not reply to Anonymous Coward, but I like your thinking: Apply all standards equally across the board.
What if the girl didn't bother to protect herself against rape? No mace, guns, knives. No martial arts training. Just dressing like a "slut" in public all day "asking for it"?
Well, she will likely "pay" for her negligence through getting raped. Is she supposed to be arrested or some financial related penalty? The penalty *IS* the rape.
Since you applied your logic like this, I am assuming that you think I am excusing the rapist. No. No I am not. The rapist will hopefully end up in prison with a full sentence to serve.
In some countries if you get raped you go to jail or worse. There are people on earth numbering in the millions who don't see a problem with this.
Yep. I recall seeing that 12 year old girl get stoned (the bad kind) by Al Shabab because she was raped. I do see a problem with that, but I am unsure why you thought that relevant to bring up.
I find it interesting how the theory of holding victims responsible for criminal acts against them appears to be arbitrary based entirely on subjective whims and sensibilities of the beholder.
Are we having a conversation or have you gone off the deep end here? Let's bring this a little closer to reality so we can discuss this coherently:
Let's say you left your 12 year old daughter with an adult friend of yours for a few weeks. You find out that your daughter was raped.
Would you be upset at your friend for letting your daughter go out virtually undressed and walk down dark alleys in bad neighborhoods alone? Why or why not? Would you blame your friend for her rape? Why or why not?
You didn't have enough deadbolts and failed to reinforce door frame. It's your fault you were robbed.
I like it. More "applying standards equally" here.
You are wrong here. If you put in a deadbolt and reinforced the frame on your door, there was no negligence.
It's your fault you got shot. You failed to protect your home against bullets even though you knew full well other shootings have taken place in the neighborhood.
Um... you do realize that we are discussing culpability due to negligence?
Fortunately I don't suffer from the same mental deficiency many of you appear to be suffering from.
Well... that is true. You are not suffering from the same mental deficiency, but there is a deficiency there.
It is quite easy for me to say sending the victim of a crime to jail for functionally being a victim is fucked up PERIOD. No matter what the circumstances this is not even remotely acceptable behavior.
And... there is the proof.
We are discussing culpability due to negligence but you mixed it up with personal responsibility to yourself with all of the examples provided.
I honestly recommend you discover why you mixed it up this badly. It is a sign telling you how you are messed up. For your sake, I hope it is only because you are smoking too much weed.
Good luck.
I would be curious if anyone is able to cite just one single solitary instance of a major data breach where the company holding data was deemed to have "sufficient" safeguards in place and therefore wasn't held responsible for the attack.
Not a company, but Snowden did quite a number on the NSA. It wasn't their negligence that allowed him to do what he did.
Corporate examples are harder to come by because they don't advertise when they have been attacked.
Is there in reality a standard anyone can follow that would absolve them of responsibility if attack is successful anyway?
Well sure. If you follow standards and/or procedures, you are covered. If all you are doing is checkbox security, someone will get in, but you can at least point to all of those checked boxes and absolve yourself from legal responsibility.
If the standard in reality is that people (corporations are people my friend) are held liable for every transgression against them no matter what that's not something I can support.
Agreed. It is an impossible standard stating it like that. There are numerous security standards that you could subscribe to, such as FISMA, but to not subscribe to any standard is clear evidence of negligence.
Yes, there are things that kill you other than measles. The difference is that measles is pretty easily preventable - people just have to get vaccinated.
Another aspect of this that you should address to these fuckers: The more hosts that a virus can live in, the more mutations that will occur. This speeds up the evolution of the virus and can lead to a strain that is much more terrible than *mere* measles.
Even further than that, a virus is a "living" "creature" that can reproduce exponentially, and once it gets to a certain level of "presence" the risk increase exponentially because there are people who can not be vaccinated or that the vaccination just didn't work for them.
On the one hand, I get a creepy feeling when I am told that everyone needs to get something injected to them. On the other hand, I have learned what this is all about and agree that everyone should be vaccinated, even if it is done at gun point with them kicking and screaming like any other wild animal would.
What is insane about all of this is that some basic scientific knowledge and a 4 meter straight edge and a large body of water are all that is needed to *see* that Earth is round(ish) and you can even get pretty close to measuring the actual size. I did it myself when I was in the Navy and in the middle of the ocean, but it can be done from the shore:
Hold the straight edge over the horizon. Try to align the straight edge with the edge of the horizon. You can't. Why? Because the Earth is curved. Measure the difference between the straight edge and the horizon and with some simple math, you can get a rough measure of the size of the planet.
Without anything but some observations and some logic, you can also arrive at the Earth being round. This one is too long to describe for short attention span people but the essence is that round is the only acceptable shape for a planet of this size to be.
Ultimately, there is no way to decide that the planet is anything but round unless you believe that the Universe does not have universal principles that apply everywhere under all circumstances. Of course, once you hit "God did it", no amount of logic or reason will ever a/effect their "knowledge".
First of all new borns basically have no immune system. Vaccination before about 6 weeks is completely pointless
Nonsense. Newborns have a poorly developed immune system, but that's a far cry from "no immune system".
While technically correct (the best kind of correct!), your view was too narrow.
Here, let me clarify (in a non-hostile manner):
First of all new borns basically have no immune system.
I have bolded the relevant word. Be honest. Isn't it reasonable to equate "basically no immune system (functionality is a word that should have been added here for clarity, but the meaning is generally the same regardless)" to "Newborns have a poorly developed immune system"?
There are numerous different ways to word it. "basically none" and "poorly developed" really mean the same thing in this context.
It was not useful.
Your information was useful as was your ultimate point. On this one portion though, it seems rather nit-picky to bring it up because we can be certain that both statements are functionally the same.
It is not a bad analogy but it is being framed wrong. But let's work with the path you are going down:
But if a bank gets robbed, and the bank's customers' money is stolen, we don't put the bank manager in jail, we put the robber in jail. A corporation that got breached is far more like a robbed bank than it is a pickpocket.
What if the bank didn't bother to protect itself against robberies? No silent alarms, no policies and procedures, etc?
Sure, you can not "really" prevent a robbery, but you can limit the damage and you can limit the ease with which a bank can be robbed and you can limit the amount of expected success.
If a CEO of a bank decided that security was not important and failed to implement known-effective security measures, don't you think that CEO should be held responsible for their banks getting robbed?
Everything in this post except ONE thing is good, accurate, and relatable.
What about the engineers and technicians?
Fuck you you snivelling little shitstain.
The issue isn't with the hostility; although it is counter-productive. No, the issues is that you automatically dismiss ALL responsibility that the lower layer people have.
Everyone has a part to play here. The CEO is "where the buck stops" and the CEO and CIO should BOTH be held primarily accountable.
Regardless, a simple lowly engineer can also be egregiously negligent and they should be held accountable too if they are demonstrating willful negligence. None of this absolves the CEO and CIO, but everyone needs to be accountable; otherwise, the "downtrodden" (seriously, update your worldview) can just fuck over the CEO and entire organization without worrying about being held accountable.
Does that sound like Social Justice to you my fine warrior friend? If it does, you are working against your own fucking goals. ;)
Movies and Television are separate markets. Television gets their money from advertisers, Movies get their money directly from individual consumers. Entirely different market forces at work; therefore, it is appropriate to treat them differently, even if they seem similar on the surface.
OOooooo. This is interesting. I am surprised because I wouldn't think there is much here:
I think I am seeing what the other person was driving at. Netflix is not an "open platform". I need to subscribe and I need to have an "approved device" whereas with a movie theater, I just buy a ticket and watch, nothing special needed from me.
A movie theater has to justify kicking me out, Netflix does not.
I am sure there is more to it than this, but there is a very real difference in access between a movie theater and Netflix.
Not that I agree or disagree with the final point, just that it is more nuanced than originally expected.
Look, this is real simple. I apologize for denying paths but not providing paths forward. This is how it works.
When there is a problem, examine yourself and how you can possibly e/affect the problem. Or, in other words, if the blame game must be played, play it against yourself.
Example that just happened: A section of people "need" a shared account. They had the account name and password on a post-it note hanging over numerous display devices that were visible (for certain definitions of visible) to the general public. I required that the password be changed and the post-its removed.
Seems simple enough and correct enough right? I went back to check on what was happening and found that the person changing the password made it 14 characters with obscure symbols and such.
*blink* *blink*
I told the guy that was wrong. That password will be on a post-it before the end of the day. I demonstrated how he should have done it by using an XKCD comic to demonstrate. https://xkcd.com/936/
Ultimately, shared accounts are not needed but I have decades of organically grown network crap to deal with and this particular section does have an issue that is solved by shared accounts. It will take a lot of time to work with this section, so rather than totally disrupting their work flow, I am dealing with the worst of their issues in a light-handed manner until I work with their upper management to re-engineer their work flow properly.
TL;DR, do what you can when you can. blaming others is merely an fruitless exercise designed to hide your own inadequacies. (DoTA and LoL players should take this to heart!)
You are getting caught up on one instance of the issue that I am discussing.
The issue is that people assign blame and then move on. Moving on does not solve the problem and blaming someone does not solve the problem. Solving the problem solves the problem.
How to solve this one? I can give you some ideas, but I am not an infinite genius. I don't have answers for everything. I do know that playing the blame game ensures that nothing will get solved and that is EXACTLY what this article is doing: playing the blame game. Pitting users against Security. This is not a game. There are issues. They need to be resolved. Who cares if the blame can be placed entirely on the users or if it can be blamed entirely on Security? If you need punishments, then fine, punish people... but punishing people will not solve the problem.
Users create problems.
IT creates problems.
Security creates problems.
Why don't we work on solving those problems rather than pitting everyone against each other? This article was a troll, full stop.
Clear. Accurate. Concise. Non-hysterical.
This is one of the few comments I have seen that deserve +6 yet doesn't say anything mind blowing. Well done kind sir.
Well done indeed.
I could have written what you wrote, except that my 17.3 install will be my last Mint.
Bro, it is 47 fucking minutes long. I am NOT wasting that much time for a "payoff" that is not likely to occur.
Yes, systemd solves some problems. Yes, in some ways and from some perspectives, systemd is "better" than other init systems.
But, systemd is not just an init system and it doesn't play well with others since it is a silo. This is NOT the ideal init system and is so far from the ideal init system that this line of reasoning is a non-starter regardless of any other benefits or positives that systemd has.
The video you linked is not likely to change my understanding of systemd; therefore, I am not willing to waste 47 minutes only to find out that some guy found some neat and useful shit with systemd.
It should be noted that I am perfectly fine with you using systemd. Go with your bad self. Don't be surprised when I think you are an ignorant fool for doing so, but I will not stop you from being a fool. I will just laugh as suffer from the issues of yet another blind spot. (the blind spots can't be helped, nobody is omniscient and that is why systemd is the wrong answer to any question other than: what is the EXACT wrong way to do an init system)
This whole article is infused with the underlying idea that information must be curated for "our" benefit.
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
The Internet
P.S. are there no articles to be placed on Slashdot that discuss technology? I am fucking tired of having social programming thrown at me day in and day out. Sure, the social programming articles are, ostensibly, about tech... but they are not about tech, they are about trying to make us think in particular ways with particular frames of reference. What the fuck? Where are my meds? I need to burn my mind so I am content with this shit.
Do it right and it's reliable.
That's the trick though, isn't it? Everyone knows that nuclear can be done right. TEPCO proves that people will NOT do it right. Same with water cooling or any other project a person might do.
Of course, the knee-jerk, programmed response is to prohibit doing any such thing rather than setting it up so that it has to be done correctly. Short sighted and stupid is how they like us.
Gosh, the hate here for VB6 was a force, but I too loved the language.
VB6 was fun, but it was non-deterministic. In certain situations, the output or behavior would not be repeatable. For many tasks, it was a suitable language/environment, but its lack of determinism made it an object of derision.
It is possible to love flawed things. It is possible despise those flaws. It is possible to experience both at the same time.
refined to develop Microsoft style development
Ewwwww. Nasty.
Aaaaaannnnnd, you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
you can't blame the users, IT is still at fault...
The whole point of the article was to stir up between IT and users. It is right there in the headline. This was not an article exploring how to fix any of this, it was a troll designed to get you to say what you just said. And you fell for it.
This article is so transparently a troll, that I think they allowed 14 year olds into the social programming department. They fucked up REAL bad. If people can see that they are being manipulated, they tend to rebel and become inoculated against further programming attempts.
Ah well, one transparent article will not bring down modern society as we know it, but if they keep fucking up like this, there will be no more levers to pull. They just burned one.
We basically don't have the knowledge on how to build a secure computer that most of the population can use while remaining connected to the Internet.
We do have the knowledge. We don't have the will. The NSA etc all have a vested interest in not having secure computing/communications. It costs a LOT of resources to design and implement computing/communications in a secure manner. It can be difficult for humans to behave in a secure manner. There are all sorts of incentives given by hostile parties for humans to act in an insecure manner (this article!).
No. Secure computing/communications is not going to happen, but we do actually have the knowledge.
If you are referring to the theoretical "perfect security", then, technically, you are correct; however, we don't live in a theoretical world and we do have the knowledge to make things, for all intents and purposes, secure.
I want to blame the technology companies a bit here;
On the bright side, you aren't wrong. On the dark side, you fell for this article hook, line, and sinker. It is a "troll" article to get people worked up over blame and here you are, casting about blame. It worked! :(
When trying to assign blame, reality never gets fully addressed and people stop thinking once the blame is assigned. None of this solves the actual issues, one of which you touched upon.
This is NOT how serious issues are discussed. Blame (and value judgements) is a game to be played AFTER reality has been dealt with and are assigning punishment/rewards. This game is NOT to be played before reality has been dealt with.