These nice metrics that are still being thrown around by your so-called security consultants are bullshit. They are from times where brute-force and dictionary attacks were your problem. That's not half as much true today as it used to be. In fact, not only has technology changed, security has matured quite a bit as well. The main password I use for many sites online is 8 characters, all lower-case letters. Why? Because not even a security expert seriously remembers kCw]^7qwKR+3 - whoever came up with the idea of telling non-tech people to use passwords like that should move out of the basement and meet the real world.
So-called "hard" passwords are mostly one thing: Hard to remember. And hard to remember means you need more password resets, which leads to these "security questions" that are a bigger risk than a weak password. I mean, finding out your mothers maiden name or your first car or the name of your dog is two hours of work tops for anyone who is actually interested in getting access to your account. And the mass-hacks of today don't go via brute-forcing anymore, they grab your password from some database, so it matters little if it's "12345" or something like the above. But hard to remember also means written down more often. Either physically, which means one visit to your desk and I have your password(s) or electronically which means if I guess your master password (if you even set one) I have all of your access credentials.
I'm sorry to say it that harshly, but stuff like "x% of the passwords don't satisfy this totally arbitrary metric" is meaningless. If you want to do serious security instead of security theatre and consulting, get some actual studies done. Get the numbers on how many accounts with 6-letter passwords are being compromised compared to accounts with 8-characters-at-least-two-numbers-or-special-chars. Then we can talk. If you're still interested, because my 15 years of experience tell me you won't find that the weaker passwords are half as much a problem as you think they are. It's one of those "quick-wins" that consultants come up with when you pay them a lot of money to improve your security. You know, doesn't require much effort, sounds reasonable, is something the client can personally relate to because even the CTO/CIO/CEO uses passwords, etc.
we're trying to empower our engineering team to think a little like sales people instead of being purely service orientated.
You're fucked.
Certain skills come with certain mindsets. The brilliant technical people simply don't think like the brilliant sales people. What you call "empower" is going to make them miserable, less productive and worse at the job they should be doing.
And I'm dead serious about that. My last job was being the technical guy in the finance department who acted as go-between. And that's a setup I strongly urge you to consider as an alternative. Appoint someone who can cross worlds - and they are rare - to act as an interface. You don't want to make your tech people think like sales people. Because not thinking like sales people is what makes them good at being tech people.
Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks.
Are you certain about that, as in can you put reasons and numbers to it?
Because unless the US is dramatically different from Europe, there is no truth to that. My sister is a teacher and my girlfriend is becoming one. I know I wouldn't work the hours it requires for that kind of money. You are aware that a teachers work day is far from over when he leaves school, yes? And that the holidays are for the pupils, not the teachers?
Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.
Only because those don't exist.
Microsoft does have a history of poisoning everything they touch. I'm certainly not alone in still being angry about essentially destroying one of the major Mac games studios when they bought up Bungie just so they could have an xbox exclusive launch title.
It's not paranoia. These guys don't buy up companies out of charity, they do it to strengthen their platform(s) and to undermine the competition, which to MS means: Absolutely everyone else. Even when they create or buy up great stuff, like Photosynth for example, they can't resist the urge to chain it to the rest of their stuff for no reason at all, in that case MS Live ID.
Actually, I'd prefer the computer, if only for the comfort level. I don't especially enjoy driving, and knowing that all the cars are computer-controlled would give us one massive advantage: Predictability. Humans are easy to predict in groups, but very hard to predict individually. And erratic reactions to minor events is one of the reasons the roads are as busy and unsafe as they are.
Death per mile traveled would be a better indication.
Or per hour spent travelling, or per trip, or, or, or - there are various equally valid ways to bring the numbers into comparison, depending on what you're after.
I doubt any of them will be able to reverse a three orders of magnitude difference.
Everyone thinks he's an above-average statistician.
Actually, most people hate statistics, so that's probably not true.
You forget that your artificial example is just that. In a population of any reasonable size, we can assume (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that driving abilities will at least roughly follow a bell curve. It's like that with most other skills measured, so unless we have actual reasons to believe otherwise, driving abilities are probably much the same.
Or, if you want a pure math answer: The Median would not change in your above example.
Aren't those statistics only meaningful if everyone drives, flies, and rides roller coasters in equal amounts?
You can play with those numbers all you like, because of course they can not be compared directly. But we are not talking about a few minor differences, we are talking about more than three orders of magnitude.
It seems to me that fatalities per hour of would be a more useful comparison.
Or per mile, or per trip, or, or, or - as I said, yes you can do various math to make the numbers somehow comparable. They are not. The magnitude matters, though.
Cars are these strange things that drive our minds crazy. I don't know how much is cultural (i.e. movies, etc.) and how much is psychological, but there are few areas in life where the disconnect between reality and subjective is so dramatic.
Everyone thinks he's an above-average driver. Of course, that's statistically impossible. Almost everyone overestimates his (or her) ability to handle a car in unusual circumstances. Very few people can correctly judge road and weather conditions and their impacts on things like brake distance. Most people do not have a correct sense of speed anymore if they've driven at speed for a few hours.
and so on and so forth. Car accidents are within the top reasons of unnatural death in most western countries, but most of us feel more uneasy going on a rollercoaster (which cause what, a dozen or so deaths a year, world-wide?) or on a plane (around 1000 deaths per year, world-wide) than taking the car to work (1,200,000 deaths per year, world-wide). Yes, that's the real numbers, here and here are some sources, or google your own. Plane crashes fall way below the rounding error margin of car crashes.
Really, you would have to put really bad engineers with pre-historic computer equipment and unstable wiring into those cars to make them worse than human drivers.
Meanwhile in China FoxCon and friends have a problem. Their biggest market has vanished overnight. The only markets large enough in population to replace it (their own domestic and India) don't have a standard of living which would permit many to buy these products.
You've kind of forgotten about Europe there, haven't you? Bigger market than the US, standard of living similar on average, in some countries higher. And the Euro would profit dramatically from any of these scenarios, most likely replacing the US$ for things like oil and international trade.
China exports to the entire world. Losing the US as a customer would hurt them big time, but it wouldn't ruin them.
However, during my linux period i grew accustomed to finding great software doing almost everything i could wish for within a few clicks/google searches.
For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?
Not learnt anything during your Linux period? Ok, I'll help out. The answer to your question is: Are you writing them? No? See, that's why they're not there.
1.03 billion africans, for a start. That's 3.35 of them for everyone in the USA. They could form a bridge across the entire atlantic ocean from bodies and still have enough left to give every xenophobic american his own personal zombie attacker.
You must be from the US, nobody else on the planet thinks that simple-minded.
There are large stretches of Africa that are so busy with civil war and other issues that it would be days before an outbreak is even noticed, and something like two or three weeks before it's internationally reported. With zombie numbers growing exponentially, by the time some kind of outside military arrives, you'd already have a local Resident Evil scenario.
There are areas in Asia that are remote and close to inaccessible. Afghanistan mountains, jungles in Cambodia, northern India, western China, stuff like that. Similar scenario here, with the zombies potentially being able to overrun initial troop deployments because you simply can't airlift them in quickly enough.
And in both these continents, there are massive cities not far from mountains or jungles.
Maybe some people who are so sheltered they've never seen a zombie movie would make that rookie mistake, but the rest of us will be all
Assuming, of course, that zombies would actually look and/or act like in the movies. Now, how close to real life are movies in anything that's not day-to-day stuff? Say, computer operating systems, capabilities of military weapons, advanced science, codebreaking, ancient history - you name it.
A real-life zombie apocalypse would very likely look nothing like the movies.
Rightfully so. One of our plants, Krümmel has been standing still for years now, because, quite frankly, it's old and rotten and the owners tried to bring it online again at the lowest possible costs, shunning a serious investment.
Several other plants aren't that much better. Due to the indecisiveness of our governments, who want to get out of nuclear, just not just yet - which understandably causes the nuclear companies to hold back on investments, you never know what the status is after the next election - we have some of the oldest plants in the world.
Unless it is in flagranti or followed from the scene of crime, they come with a warrant. Issued by a judge.
I don't see how I can make myself any more clear. Every argument you throw out comes back full circle to that point. In civilized countries, prosecutor, judge and police are not the same person. It has once again become clear that the USA is only a part-time civilized country.
The man forfeited his right to a trial, a court, a judge, and a verdict when he and his people opened fire.
You can not forfeit your right to a trial. Show me the clause in the law where it says that. You are back to arguing from emotion and against established law.
Answer me this: 9/11 was 3524 days ago. Almost 10 years. That was more than ample time to bring a case to the ICC and get a verdict on bin Laden. Then, with an international warrant issued by a court accepted by 114 countries, go and arrest him. And then, if he resists, by all means shoot him.
But that is not what happened. What happened was that the military went out on an order from the executive branch of a single country, broke the souvereinity of a foreign country and killed someone with no legal justification whatsoever.
You are happy it was bin Laden. It could have been someone else. No checks and balances, remember?
You said, "everyone who gloats about this in any way, including writing "funny" reviews, is somewhat less than human." But you are also saying that it is ok to celebrate something. Can you detail what exactly you think is acceptable, namely what sort of celebration is permissible?
A good weekend, best friends, whatever it is you have to celebrate.
The man committed a crime in which thousands of Americans were killed. He deserved to be brought to justice.
Yes, but he was not. He was killed.
I thought we had left the middle ages behind in which we equate those two different things.
Bringing someone to justice involves, in my mind, well, justice. You know, a trial, a court, a judge, a verdict. All of that is missing here. How can you talk about justice when absolutely no element of the justice system is involved? What kind of justice is that? Is it not a cornerstone of our society that we do not each define our own justice and deal out our own punishments?
Losing that is in my book a bigger loss than the death of a terror leader is gain.
That is my point. That is why I think we should be shocked instead of happy. Much of what we should stand for has been trampled into the dirt. In Iraq, in Guantanamo and now in Abbottabad. Every time an american speaks of justice, much of the rest of the world will answer with a sad laugh. Because your actions do not match your words. You speak of justice, but you conduct revenge, and abductions, and torture, and invasions.
EVERYONES ARGUMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE AS MOOT.
Subjective creates objective - opinions shape our actions which shape our world. Subjective is anything but moot, I don't know why this meme hasn't died out long ago. Subjective is in no way less important or vital than objective is.
My family is from Poland and those are the words Nazis used to define my family, and how they justified murdering much of them.
Accepted, that explains how you came to that conclusion. Then let me simply explain that I don't think less sophisticated and more barbaric humans, like americans or fanatical muslim terrorists, or fanatical right-wing christians, for that matter, should be killed or otherwise treated badly. I maintain they are missing out on many of the more refined advancements of the human race.
We dont have a trial for EVERY enemy combatant engaged in a battle.
Osama was not a soldier on a battlefield, even if he liked to think of himself that way on occasion. He was shot in his bedroom, next to his wife, man! That's not what I picture in my mind when I read "enemy combatant engaged in a battle". So no, I will not withdraw that argument and I challenge your claim that it's a straw man.
On October 30th 2004 Osama bin Laden released a tape to Al Jezeera (and they aired it) where he explained his reasons for ordering the 9/11 attacks. Essentially this would be construed as an admission of guilt.
Yes, very likely. And I am quite certain that the ICC would have found him guilty. But - it did not, because no trial was ever conducted. And that is a vital and important point. Judges pass verdicts in a civilized society, not presidents, not generals, not navy seals.
So, to re-cap, a high profile enemy combatant is killed in a foreign country, with the permission of the country the operation was performed in, and youre complaining about legal proceedings? I personally think its funny that the irony of your statements is totally lost on you.
Yes, I am complaining about legal proceedings. Because without a judgement, this is plain and simple murder. Nothing else.
Argue that he needed killing, I'll gladly go there, we have almost 3000 years of philosophical discussion on the topic, with the ancient greek question of the murder of a tyrant providing most answers, not really has been added in the 2000 years since.
But all this "enemy combatant" quack is just propaganda. We don't like to admit that we're vanishing and torturing people, and breaking the Geneva Convention, so we give it different labels. But labels don't make things. You can't eat the menu. A rose by another name is still a rose. And so is murder.
I'm not a peace hippie, far from it. In fact, my personal list of people the world would be better off without doesn't even start with terrorists. What I do insist is calling things what they are and facing yourself in the mirror to admit that you're not that much better. When you break into people's houses to shoot them, you've left a part of civilization behind. You can argue it was necessary, it was good, it was whatever you want it to be - but you should start dropping the marketing speech and admitting that it was cold-blooded murder, that unarmed civilians were involved, and that there was absolutely no legal justification to make it ok whatsoever. No court verdict, no UN mandate, it was a demonstration of power.
He was a bastard, and the world is just a little bit brighter now that he's dead.
So if I think you are a bastard, I am allowed to kill you?
No? Thought so. But hold that thought for a second. Me thinking you're a bastard isn't enough, but apparently - see your argument above - somewhere someone thinking that is enough.
So how many people do have to think that you are a bastard before it is ok to kill you? Or is it not a majority vote but some specific people's opinions are the ones that count? Whose, and why?
If you can't celebrate the death of someone who brought that much disutility into the world, you need to reevaluate your morals.
There is a gulf between us that we won't be able to cross. I deeply believe that if you do celebrate the death of anyone, your morals are all fucked up.
Strangely, the pope thinks the same way. I think that and the colour of the sky are the only things we agree upon.
Osama thought that everyone else is sub-human as well and figured it was fine and dandy to kill us "sub-humans". Your words really tell us much more than I think you wished to say. Congratulation on being far more narrow minded than those you accuse.
In your mind. Let me stress that properly: In your mind.
Apparently you agree with Osama that sub-humans somehow deserve a worse treatment or can be killed at will.
What makes you think I share that sentiment?
The people in the World Trade Center were innocent, Osama is far from innocent.
His guilt has not been proven in a court of law.
Oh, you do believe in the principles of our justice system, do you? Or are you one of those people who think the principles don't always apply?
I'm not saying I believe he's innocent. It's sad one has to point that out explicitly. But I am saying that full-blown humans should be proud of living under the rule of law, not the rule of arbitrary self-defined justice.
But Osama was never even tried in court. His guilt was assumed, established, stated - anything but proven.
And that is his victory over you. He has caused the west - the west that he considers degenerate, evil and false - to behave in exactly those ways.
I've seriously had enough of the small crowd of people, sitting atop their high horse, saying that no one should be celebrating anything here.
I can only repeat: "Snap out of the black-and-white thinking, you brainwashed drone". The usage of the all-quantor is misleading or dishonest. Nobody is telling you to not celebrate anything.
However, I will point out that you celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden is on the same ethical level as him celebrating the 9/11 attacks.
What's being celebrated here is that justice has been done, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Revenge is being celebrated, not justice. Stop kidding yourself. Look at the snide comments. No, wait, I am wrong. It's not even revenge. You know what is being celebrated? Osama managed to hurt the US on their own turf, something that has never happened before (you fought all your wars after the revolution elsewhere except the one where you fought each other). He hurt your pride. He demolished the illusion of invulnerability. That pride is now restored, through revenge. That is what quite a lot of you celebrate. Just look closely.
If you had the principles you seem to be accusing others of lacking, you would wish he were still alive, but perhaps captured.
I don't care half as much as that. Frankly, I'm fairly sure that Osama himself hasn't been important for at least five years. There are other, more active terrorist masterminds now. Some of them thanks to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
But captured - yeah, why not? Dead - why not? You seem to mistake me for some kind of teethless hippie. I totally understand why he was killed and not imprisoned, though I think capture would have been the bigger victory. Then again, given what I expect of the USA these days, it would've been an even more horrible spectacle. One thing I know is that you definitely would not have brought him to the international court in the Hague.
Nah, dead is just as fine with me. I just don't think it's something to celebrate. Or do celebrate, but admit that you're not an inch better than the terrorists who celebrate your dead.
Everyone who gloats about this in any way, including writing "funny" reviews, is somewhat less than human.
Not that I feel sorry or wish he'd still be alive. Snap out of that "black and white", "with us or against us" mindset you brainwashed drone.
I strongly believe the adequate reaction is a solemn acknowledgement of the fact that there is now one dangerous man left on the planet. Though how dangerous exactly he was in the past past years and for the future is a matter of debate, but we can ignore that.
But gloating? Happiness? Celebration? You're not an inch better than the muslims that celebrated 9/11.
Our math is not different. "might not stop outbreaks" and "may stop outbreaks" is really the same thing - the realization that the probability of stopping an outbreak is somewhere between 0.0 and 1.0
So the math is the same. Multiply cost of bad things happening times probability of it happening. Compare with cost of bad things happening times probability of it happening with countermeasures plus cost of countermeasures.
There is no seperate math for non-windows machines. You don't do risk analysis per machine, you do it for the entire company.
The more economic model depends on your input data. If, for example, your cost of rebuilding a machine is negliegable, then AV might not be economical. Or it could simply be that you have more important threats to cover and your limited budget goes entirely towards those.
But I'm not a society, I'm a person, so it makes no sense for me to support rules which only benefit society as such.
Not in a 1:1 reciprocal calculation, but it does benefit you to support society because you benefit greatly from it. Yes, even if you're a wonky Texan with a "fuck everyone outside my ranch" attitude - your whole fucking ranch wouldn't be there if it weren't for society and its advances.
Society as a whole does indeed have a mind independent of the individual minds that make it up. Much buzzword bingo has been played with that concept, but the simple fact is that society regularily acts in ways that no individual within would. That is true for the most primitive ad-hoc societies (e.g. groups of people, say at a demonstration or rock concert) and it's true for more complex and longer-lasting ones as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You're 10 years or so behind.
These nice metrics that are still being thrown around by your so-called security consultants are bullshit. They are from times where brute-force and dictionary attacks were your problem. That's not half as much true today as it used to be. In fact, not only has technology changed, security has matured quite a bit as well.
The main password I use for many sites online is 8 characters, all lower-case letters. Why? Because not even a security expert seriously remembers kCw]^7qwKR+3 - whoever came up with the idea of telling non-tech people to use passwords like that should move out of the basement and meet the real world.
So-called "hard" passwords are mostly one thing: Hard to remember. And hard to remember means you need more password resets, which leads to these "security questions" that are a bigger risk than a weak password. I mean, finding out your mothers maiden name or your first car or the name of your dog is two hours of work tops for anyone who is actually interested in getting access to your account. And the mass-hacks of today don't go via brute-forcing anymore, they grab your password from some database, so it matters little if it's "12345" or something like the above.
But hard to remember also means written down more often. Either physically, which means one visit to your desk and I have your password(s) or electronically which means if I guess your master password (if you even set one) I have all of your access credentials.
I'm sorry to say it that harshly, but stuff like "x% of the passwords don't satisfy this totally arbitrary metric" is meaningless. If you want to do serious security instead of security theatre and consulting, get some actual studies done. Get the numbers on how many accounts with 6-letter passwords are being compromised compared to accounts with 8-characters-at-least-two-numbers-or-special-chars. Then we can talk. If you're still interested, because my 15 years of experience tell me you won't find that the weaker passwords are half as much a problem as you think they are. It's one of those "quick-wins" that consultants come up with when you pay them a lot of money to improve your security. You know, doesn't require much effort, sounds reasonable, is something the client can personally relate to because even the CTO/CIO/CEO uses passwords, etc.
we're trying to empower our engineering team to think a little like sales people instead of being purely service orientated.
You're fucked.
Certain skills come with certain mindsets. The brilliant technical people simply don't think like the brilliant sales people. What you call "empower" is going to make them miserable, less productive and worse at the job they should be doing.
And I'm dead serious about that. My last job was being the technical guy in the finance department who acted as go-between. And that's a setup I strongly urge you to consider as an alternative. Appoint someone who can cross worlds - and they are rare - to act as an interface. You don't want to make your tech people think like sales people. Because not thinking like sales people is what makes them good at being tech people.
Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks.
Are you certain about that, as in can you put reasons and numbers to it?
Because unless the US is dramatically different from Europe, there is no truth to that. My sister is a teacher and my girlfriend is becoming one. I know I wouldn't work the hours it requires for that kind of money. You are aware that a teachers work day is far from over when he leaves school, yes? And that the holidays are for the pupils, not the teachers?
Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.
Only because those don't exist.
Microsoft does have a history of poisoning everything they touch. I'm certainly not alone in still being angry about essentially destroying one of the major Mac games studios when they bought up Bungie just so they could have an xbox exclusive launch title.
It's not paranoia. These guys don't buy up companies out of charity, they do it to strengthen their platform(s) and to undermine the competition, which to MS means: Absolutely everyone else. Even when they create or buy up great stuff, like Photosynth for example, they can't resist the urge to chain it to the rest of their stuff for no reason at all, in that case MS Live ID.
Actually, I'd prefer the computer, if only for the comfort level. I don't especially enjoy driving, and knowing that all the cars are computer-controlled would give us one massive advantage: Predictability. Humans are easy to predict in groups, but very hard to predict individually. And erratic reactions to minor events is one of the reasons the roads are as busy and unsafe as they are.
Death per mile traveled would be a better indication.
Or per hour spent travelling, or per trip, or, or, or - there are various equally valid ways to bring the numbers into comparison, depending on what you're after.
I doubt any of them will be able to reverse a three orders of magnitude difference.
Everyone thinks he's an above-average statistician.
Actually, most people hate statistics, so that's probably not true.
You forget that your artificial example is just that. In a population of any reasonable size, we can assume (unless you have evidence to the contrary) that driving abilities will at least roughly follow a bell curve. It's like that with most other skills measured, so unless we have actual reasons to believe otherwise, driving abilities are probably much the same.
Or, if you want a pure math answer: The Median would not change in your above example.
Aren't those statistics only meaningful if everyone drives, flies, and rides roller coasters in equal amounts?
You can play with those numbers all you like, because of course they can not be compared directly. But we are not talking about a few minor differences, we are talking about more than three orders of magnitude.
It seems to me that fatalities per hour of would be a more useful comparison.
Or per mile, or per trip, or, or, or - as I said, yes you can do various math to make the numbers somehow comparable. They are not. The magnitude matters, though.
would you trust WiFi to drive your car?
Do I trust the drivers of the other cars?
Cars are these strange things that drive our minds crazy. I don't know how much is cultural (i.e. movies, etc.) and how much is psychological, but there are few areas in life where the disconnect between reality and subjective is so dramatic.
Everyone thinks he's an above-average driver. Of course, that's statistically impossible.
Almost everyone overestimates his (or her) ability to handle a car in unusual circumstances.
Very few people can correctly judge road and weather conditions and their impacts on things like brake distance.
Most people do not have a correct sense of speed anymore if they've driven at speed for a few hours.
and so on and so forth. Car accidents are within the top reasons of unnatural death in most western countries, but most of us feel more uneasy going on a rollercoaster (which cause what, a dozen or so deaths a year, world-wide?) or on a plane (around 1000 deaths per year, world-wide) than taking the car to work (1,200,000 deaths per year, world-wide). Yes, that's the real numbers, here and here are some sources, or google your own. Plane crashes fall way below the rounding error margin of car crashes.
Really, you would have to put really bad engineers with pre-historic computer equipment and unstable wiring into those cars to make them worse than human drivers.
Meanwhile in China FoxCon and friends have a problem. Their biggest market has vanished overnight. The only markets large enough in population to replace it (their own domestic and India) don't have a standard of living which would permit many to buy these products.
You've kind of forgotten about Europe there, haven't you? Bigger market than the US, standard of living similar on average, in some countries higher. And the Euro would profit dramatically from any of these scenarios, most likely replacing the US$ for things like oil and international trade.
China exports to the entire world. Losing the US as a customer would hurt them big time, but it wouldn't ruin them.
However, during my linux period i grew accustomed to finding great software doing almost everything i could wish for within a few clicks/google searches.
For OSX its the opposite. For every small task that i want to accomplish, i seem to need to pony up. Every small time programmer tries to make a buck with his little program. Nothing wrong with that, but where are the Free/Libre alternatives?
Not learnt anything during your Linux period? Ok, I'll help out. The answer to your question is: Are you writing them? No? See, that's why they're not there.
Also, who the fuck cares about Africa?
1.03 billion africans, for a start. That's 3.35 of them for everyone in the USA. They could form a bridge across the entire atlantic ocean from bodies and still have enough left to give every xenophobic american his own personal zombie attacker.
Considering how remote and sparsely populated many of those regions are
Errr...
population density
Sure there are valleys with almost no population. But they aren't very far from some of the densest populated areas on earth.
Where else then? Canada?
You must be from the US, nobody else on the planet thinks that simple-minded.
There are large stretches of Africa that are so busy with civil war and other issues that it would be days before an outbreak is even noticed, and something like two or three weeks before it's internationally reported. With zombie numbers growing exponentially, by the time some kind of outside military arrives, you'd already have a local Resident Evil scenario.
There are areas in Asia that are remote and close to inaccessible. Afghanistan mountains, jungles in Cambodia, northern India, western China, stuff like that. Similar scenario here, with the zombies potentially being able to overrun initial troop deployments because you simply can't airlift them in quickly enough.
And in both these continents, there are massive cities not far from mountains or jungles.
Maybe some people who are so sheltered they've never seen a zombie movie would make that rookie mistake, but the rest of us will be all
Assuming, of course, that zombies would actually look and/or act like in the movies. Now, how close to real life are movies in anything that's not day-to-day stuff? Say, computer operating systems, capabilities of military weapons, advanced science, codebreaking, ancient history - you name it.
A real-life zombie apocalypse would very likely look nothing like the movies.
I don't even trust the Germans to do it right.
Rightfully so. One of our plants, Krümmel has been standing still for years now, because, quite frankly, it's old and rotten and the owners tried to bring it online again at the lowest possible costs, shunning a serious investment.
Several other plants aren't that much better. Due to the indecisiveness of our governments, who want to get out of nuclear, just not just yet - which understandably causes the nuclear companies to hold back on investments, you never know what the status is after the next election - we have some of the oldest plants in the world.
If you murder someone, the police come to get you
Unless it is in flagranti or followed from the scene of crime, they come with a warrant. Issued by a judge.
I don't see how I can make myself any more clear. Every argument you throw out comes back full circle to that point. In civilized countries, prosecutor, judge and police are not the same person. It has once again become clear that the USA is only a part-time civilized country.
The man forfeited his right to a trial, a court, a judge, and a verdict when he and his people opened fire.
You can not forfeit your right to a trial. Show me the clause in the law where it says that. You are back to arguing from emotion and against established law.
Answer me this: 9/11 was 3524 days ago. Almost 10 years. That was more than ample time to bring a case to the ICC and get a verdict on bin Laden. Then, with an international warrant issued by a court accepted by 114 countries, go and arrest him. And then, if he resists, by all means shoot him.
But that is not what happened. What happened was that the military went out on an order from the executive branch of a single country, broke the souvereinity of a foreign country and killed someone with no legal justification whatsoever.
You are happy it was bin Laden. It could have been someone else. No checks and balances, remember?
You said, "everyone who gloats about this in any way, including writing "funny" reviews, is somewhat less than human." But you are also saying that it is ok to celebrate something. Can you detail what exactly you think is acceptable, namely what sort of celebration is permissible?
A good weekend, best friends, whatever it is you have to celebrate.
The man committed a crime in which thousands of Americans were killed. He deserved to be brought to justice.
Yes, but he was not.
He was killed.
I thought we had left the middle ages behind in which we equate those two different things.
Bringing someone to justice involves, in my mind, well, justice. You know, a trial, a court, a judge, a verdict. All of that is missing here. How can you talk about justice when absolutely no element of the justice system is involved? What kind of justice is that? Is it not a cornerstone of our society that we do not each define our own justice and deal out our own punishments?
Losing that is in my book a bigger loss than the death of a terror leader is gain.
That is my point. That is why I think we should be shocked instead of happy. Much of what we should stand for has been trampled into the dirt. In Iraq, in Guantanamo and now in Abbottabad. Every time an american speaks of justice, much of the rest of the world will answer with a sad laugh. Because your actions do not match your words. You speak of justice, but you conduct revenge, and abductions, and torture, and invasions.
EVERYONES ARGUMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE AS MOOT.
Subjective creates objective - opinions shape our actions which shape our world. Subjective is anything but moot, I don't know why this meme hasn't died out long ago. Subjective is in no way less important or vital than objective is.
My family is from Poland and those are the words Nazis used to define my family, and how they justified murdering much of them.
Accepted, that explains how you came to that conclusion. Then let me simply explain that I don't think less sophisticated and more barbaric humans, like americans or fanatical muslim terrorists, or fanatical right-wing christians, for that matter, should be killed or otherwise treated badly. I maintain they are missing out on many of the more refined advancements of the human race.
We dont have a trial for EVERY enemy combatant engaged in a battle.
Osama was not a soldier on a battlefield, even if he liked to think of himself that way on occasion. He was shot in his bedroom, next to his wife, man! That's not what I picture in my mind when I read "enemy combatant engaged in a battle".
So no, I will not withdraw that argument and I challenge your claim that it's a straw man.
On October 30th 2004 Osama bin Laden released a tape to Al Jezeera (and they aired it) where he explained his reasons for ordering the 9/11 attacks. Essentially this would be construed as an admission of guilt.
Yes, very likely. And I am quite certain that the ICC would have found him guilty. But - it did not, because no trial was ever conducted. And that is a vital and important point. Judges pass verdicts in a civilized society, not presidents, not generals, not navy seals.
So, to re-cap, a high profile enemy combatant is killed in a foreign country, with the permission of the country the operation was performed in, and youre complaining about legal proceedings? I personally think its funny that the irony of your statements is totally lost on you.
Yes, I am complaining about legal proceedings. Because without a judgement, this is plain and simple murder. Nothing else.
Argue that he needed killing, I'll gladly go there, we have almost 3000 years of philosophical discussion on the topic, with the ancient greek question of the murder of a tyrant providing most answers, not really has been added in the 2000 years since.
But all this "enemy combatant" quack is just propaganda. We don't like to admit that we're vanishing and torturing people, and breaking the Geneva Convention, so we give it different labels. But labels don't make things. You can't eat the menu. A rose by another name is still a rose. And so is murder.
I'm not a peace hippie, far from it. In fact, my personal list of people the world would be better off without doesn't even start with terrorists. What I do insist is calling things what they are and facing yourself in the mirror to admit that you're not that much better. When you break into people's houses to shoot them, you've left a part of civilization behind. You can argue it was necessary, it was good, it was whatever you want it to be - but you should start dropping the marketing speech and admitting that it was cold-blooded murder, that unarmed civilians were involved, and that there was absolutely no legal justification to make it ok whatsoever. No court verdict, no UN mandate, it was a demonstration of power.
He was a bastard, and the world is just a little bit brighter now that he's dead.
So if I think you are a bastard, I am allowed to kill you?
No? Thought so. But hold that thought for a second. Me thinking you're a bastard isn't enough, but apparently - see your argument above - somewhere someone thinking that is enough.
So how many people do have to think that you are a bastard before it is ok to kill you? Or is it not a majority vote but some specific people's opinions are the ones that count? Whose, and why?
If you can't celebrate the death of someone who brought that much disutility into the world, you need to reevaluate your morals.
There is a gulf between us that we won't be able to cross. I deeply believe that if you do celebrate the death of anyone, your morals are all fucked up.
Strangely, the pope thinks the same way. I think that and the colour of the sky are the only things we agree upon.
Osama thought that everyone else is sub-human as well and figured it was fine and dandy to kill us "sub-humans". Your words really tell us much more than I think you wished to say. Congratulation on being far more narrow minded than those you accuse.
In your mind. Let me stress that properly: In your mind.
Apparently you agree with Osama that sub-humans somehow deserve a worse treatment or can be killed at will.
What makes you think I share that sentiment?
The people in the World Trade Center were innocent, Osama is far from innocent.
His guilt has not been proven in a court of law.
Oh, you do believe in the principles of our justice system, do you? Or are you one of those people who think the principles don't always apply?
I'm not saying I believe he's innocent. It's sad one has to point that out explicitly. But I am saying that full-blown humans should be proud of living under the rule of law, not the rule of arbitrary self-defined justice.
But Osama was never even tried in court. His guilt was assumed, established, stated - anything but proven.
And that is his victory over you. He has caused the west - the west that he considers degenerate, evil and false - to behave in exactly those ways.
I've seriously had enough of the small crowd of people, sitting atop their high horse, saying that no one should be celebrating anything here.
I can only repeat: "Snap out of the black-and-white thinking, you brainwashed drone".
The usage of the all-quantor is misleading or dishonest. Nobody is telling you to not celebrate anything.
However, I will point out that you celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden is on the same ethical level as him celebrating the 9/11 attacks.
What's being celebrated here is that justice has been done, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Revenge is being celebrated, not justice. Stop kidding yourself. Look at the snide comments. No, wait, I am wrong. It's not even revenge. You know what is being celebrated? Osama managed to hurt the US on their own turf, something that has never happened before (you fought all your wars after the revolution elsewhere except the one where you fought each other). He hurt your pride. He demolished the illusion of invulnerability. That pride is now restored, through revenge. That is what quite a lot of you celebrate. Just look closely.
If you had the principles you seem to be accusing others of lacking, you would wish he were still alive, but perhaps captured.
I don't care half as much as that. Frankly, I'm fairly sure that Osama himself hasn't been important for at least five years. There are other, more active terrorist masterminds now. Some of them thanks to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
But captured - yeah, why not? Dead - why not? You seem to mistake me for some kind of teethless hippie. I totally understand why he was killed and not imprisoned, though I think capture would have been the bigger victory. Then again, given what I expect of the USA these days, it would've been an even more horrible spectacle. One thing I know is that you definitely would not have brought him to the international court in the Hague.
Nah, dead is just as fine with me. I just don't think it's something to celebrate. Or do celebrate, but admit that you're not an inch better than the terrorists who celebrate your dead.
Everyone who gloats about this in any way, including writing "funny" reviews, is somewhat less than human.
Not that I feel sorry or wish he'd still be alive. Snap out of that "black and white", "with us or against us" mindset you brainwashed drone.
I strongly believe the adequate reaction is a solemn acknowledgement of the fact that there is now one dangerous man left on the planet. Though how dangerous exactly he was in the past past years and for the future is a matter of debate, but we can ignore that.
But gloating? Happiness? Celebration? You're not an inch better than the muslims that celebrated 9/11.
Correct: AV is not 100% safe
Our math is not different. "might not stop outbreaks" and "may stop outbreaks" is really the same thing - the realization that the probability of stopping an outbreak is somewhere between 0.0 and 1.0
So the math is the same. Multiply cost of bad things happening times probability of it happening. Compare with cost of bad things happening times probability of it happening with countermeasures plus cost of countermeasures.
There is no seperate math for non-windows machines. You don't do risk analysis per machine, you do it for the entire company.
The more economic model depends on your input data. If, for example, your cost of rebuilding a machine is negliegable, then AV might not be economical. Or it could simply be that you have more important threats to cover and your limited budget goes entirely towards those.
But I'm not a society, I'm a person, so it makes no sense for me to support rules which only benefit society as such.
Not in a 1:1 reciprocal calculation, but it does benefit you to support society because you benefit greatly from it. Yes, even if you're a wonky Texan with a "fuck everyone outside my ranch" attitude - your whole fucking ranch wouldn't be there if it weren't for society and its advances.
Society as a whole does indeed have a mind independent of the individual minds that make it up. Much buzzword bingo has been played with that concept, but the simple fact is that society regularily acts in ways that no individual within would. That is true for the most primitive ad-hoc societies (e.g. groups of people, say at a demonstration or rock concert) and it's true for more complex and longer-lasting ones as well.