It is about giving the appearance of "doing something" to impress the stupid masses and it is about giving some top bureaucrats a lot of power and boost their egos. Remember that a bureaucrat becomes more important by being able to "bind" time of others (i.e. waste it) and hence any bureaucracy tries to waste as much time of their victims as possible. Of course, any pretext is is acceptable. "Security!" is the best of them, as it will cause an immediate shutdown of all intelligence in most people.
I.e. the TSA wastes time, money and insults people, while it does not create security. This is as intended.
Indeed. And in addition, it does not even matter for the attack that happened one bit. The question is clueless, the answer is not so much. Equifax did a lot of things wrong. but this is not one of them. Now, if their disks had been stolen, this question would be relevant, but it was an online-attack, and storage encryption does provide zero protection for data that is online during such an attack.
Indeed. It basically protects against theft of your disks. For tapes, it is a bit more important. But it has zero value as defense against getting hacked. The question is about as clueless as the answer was.
It does not matter at all for the type of attack we are talking about here. Storage encryption helps if somebody steals the physical disks out of the server, but it does not help at all for file-systems that are online where the OS will nicely decrypt everything you ask for before giving it to you. It also helps if, say, backup tapes get stolen or laptops that are off (not hibernated or suspended) get stolen. The question just reveals that the person asking it is clueless.
If this is data that was online ("at rest" is also irrelevant here, it just means "stored in some way"), then it does really not matter whether the storage device contains it in encrypted form. If it is online, you can just access it in plain via standard OS interfaces. Storage encryption protects data that is offline, not data that is "at rest". Hence, storage encryption does fine for removed disks, tapes, etc. It can also work for disks that are online but not mapped in the decryption layer, but that is a rare situation.
Ask an irrelevant question - get an irrelevant answer.
Now, I have no intention to defend Equifax in any way, but at least accuse them of something where they actually did it wrong.
Nobody is looking at Bitcoin for anything but currency replacement commercially. It is simply not useful for anything else. Sure, Etherium, for example, still has design problems, but once they are ironed out, it can be used for all those contract and supply-chain things, while Bitcoin will never be useful there. But Bitcoin is only useful as a currency replacement if it has a reasonably stable exchange rate. (It already fails on anonymity, which other crypto-currencies do not.) It does not. So, in essence, Bitcoin has absolutely no sane use at this time and hence it is basically a pure pyramid-scheme.
Oh, yes. A failure during a test is nothing unexpected. It is where failures are supposed to happen. Anybody that does not understand that does not know the first thing about engineering. And a "qualification test" in particular serves to find the occasional manufacturing fault still present before it does real damage.
How I hate the scum that cannot take responsibility for what they screwed up. These people are the most destructive force in the workplace, no matter what level.
As in a reason- and fact-based stance towards new things? Good luck with that. Most people are far too stupid to be able to even begin to understand anything new, they go straight for the emotional response. And that boils down to either "this thing is going to make everything better" or "this thing is going to kill us". It is not even that people do not have enough intelligence, they just refuse to use it.
As can also be seen by the incredible number of people doing volunteer work, because they have no financial reason to work. I don't know whether that can scale up to fill this void, but it will certainly be a factor.
Indeed. The real problem is not how to keep people fed and with a bit of spending money on top. That problem is solved, even if a lot of people have their heads in their behinds about it. The real question is what people are going to do with their time to give their lives meaning.
Indeed. "Work" as primary mechanism to get the wealth of society to the masses has run its course. There will be jobs left at the upper qualification end and quite a few that cannot easily be automatized, but I would expect that 80...90% of all jobs are going away and this will happen in the next 20 years or so.
While you are correct and this is definitely "weak AI", i.e. the AI without "I" and would better be called "automation", it does really threaten a lot of jobs. As it turns out, most jobs do not need actual intelligence for most of the work done. Fro example, in one Amazon warehouse, you have one human supervising and complementing 5 robots. That means somewhere between 4 and 10 people have lost that job to automation.
As to the article, that "new deal" is not going to happen. The people to be replaced are not people with a really high level of education and for most of them it is an aptitude problem, i.e. they will never have a high level of education. Hence they will not re-enter a workforce that requires such an education. And even if they could get that education, the jobs are mostly just gone. We do not need many more engineers and scientists.
Hence this is just another person that really does not understand what is going on: For the first time in history, people are not moving to higher-qualified jobs, because they a) cannot get the qualifications required due to human limitations and b) there are not many higher-qualified jobs being created in the first place. This is a new situation and all the old recipes will just fail.
I disagree. While per-core computing power has hot an end (and multi-cores are hard to use for most things), this end is in no way, shape or form "dead".
I wonder whether trump and his ilk are just suicidal on a species level or utterly stupid. Or maybe the only thing that matters to Trump will be that "it happens after I am dead".
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. And they get hijacked all the time.
It is about giving the appearance of "doing something" to impress the stupid masses and it is about giving some top bureaucrats a lot of power and boost their egos. Remember that a bureaucrat becomes more important by being able to "bind" time of others (i.e. waste it) and hence any bureaucracy tries to waste as much time of their victims as possible. Of course, any pretext is is acceptable. "Security!" is the best of them, as it will cause an immediate shutdown of all intelligence in most people.
I.e. the TSA wastes time, money and insults people, while it does not create security. This is as intended.
Indeed. And in addition, it does not even matter for the attack that happened one bit. The question is clueless, the answer is not so much. Equifax did a lot of things wrong. but this is not one of them. Now, if their disks had been stolen, this question would be relevant, but it was an online-attack, and storage encryption does provide zero protection for data that is online during such an attack.
Indeed. It basically protects against theft of your disks. For tapes, it is a bit more important. But it has zero value as defense against getting hacked. The question is about as clueless as the answer was.
It does not matter at all for the type of attack we are talking about here. Storage encryption helps if somebody steals the physical disks out of the server, but it does not help at all for file-systems that are online where the OS will nicely decrypt everything you ask for before giving it to you. It also helps if, say, backup tapes get stolen or laptops that are off (not hibernated or suspended) get stolen. The question just reveals that the person asking it is clueless.
If this is data that was online ("at rest" is also irrelevant here, it just means "stored in some way"), then it does really not matter whether the storage device contains it in encrypted form. If it is online, you can just access it in plain via standard OS interfaces. Storage encryption protects data that is offline, not data that is "at rest". Hence, storage encryption does fine for removed disks, tapes, etc. It can also work for disks that are online but not mapped in the decryption layer, but that is a rare situation.
Ask an irrelevant question - get an irrelevant answer.
Now, I have no intention to defend Equifax in any way, but at least accuse them of something where they actually did it wrong.
Indeed. It is one form of redundancy employed to make the final product as reliable as it reasonably can be. Definitely not a failure.
Nobody is looking at Bitcoin for anything but currency replacement commercially. It is simply not useful for anything else. Sure, Etherium, for example, still has design problems, but once they are ironed out, it can be used for all those contract and supply-chain things, while Bitcoin will never be useful there. But Bitcoin is only useful as a currency replacement if it has a reasonably stable exchange rate. (It already fails on anonymity, which other crypto-currencies do not.) It does not. So, in essence, Bitcoin has absolutely no sane use at this time and hence it is basically a pure pyramid-scheme.
Oh, yes. A failure during a test is nothing unexpected. It is where failures are supposed to happen. Anybody that does not understand that does not know the first thing about engineering. And a "qualification test" in particular serves to find the occasional manufacturing fault still present before it does real damage.
You have a point.
How I hate the scum that cannot take responsibility for what they screwed up. These people are the most destructive force in the workplace, no matter what level.
Well, if it turns out to not be a problem, all the better.
As in a reason- and fact-based stance towards new things? Good luck with that. Most people are far too stupid to be able to even begin to understand anything new, they go straight for the emotional response. And that boils down to either "this thing is going to make everything better" or "this thing is going to kill us". It is not even that people do not have enough intelligence, they just refuse to use it.
As can also be seen by the incredible number of people doing volunteer work, because they have no financial reason to work. I don't know whether that can scale up to fill this void, but it will certainly be a factor.
Indeed. The real problem is not how to keep people fed and with a bit of spending money on top. That problem is solved, even if a lot of people have their heads in their behinds about it. The real question is what people are going to do with their time to give their lives meaning.
Indeed. "Work" as primary mechanism to get the wealth of society to the masses has run its course. There will be jobs left at the upper qualification end and quite a few that cannot easily be automatized, but I would expect that 80...90% of all jobs are going away and this will happen in the next 20 years or so.
While you are correct and this is definitely "weak AI", i.e. the AI without "I" and would better be called "automation", it does really threaten a lot of jobs. As it turns out, most jobs do not need actual intelligence for most of the work done. Fro example, in one Amazon warehouse, you have one human supervising and complementing 5 robots. That means somewhere between 4 and 10 people have lost that job to automation.
As to the article, that "new deal" is not going to happen. The people to be replaced are not people with a really high level of education and for most of them it is an aptitude problem, i.e. they will never have a high level of education. Hence they will not re-enter a workforce that requires such an education. And even if they could get that education, the jobs are mostly just gone. We do not need many more engineers and scientists.
Hence this is just another person that really does not understand what is going on: For the first time in history, people are not moving to higher-qualified jobs, because they a) cannot get the qualifications required due to human limitations and b) there are not many higher-qualified jobs being created in the first place. This is a new situation and all the old recipes will just fail.
Now that would be an event to remember for a long time!
Of course, the actual problem is not Trump. He is just a symptom of the morons taking over.
The reason is to give users a few days to patch.
Well, the results of that may still be funny, at least.
I disagree. While per-core computing power has hot an end (and multi-cores are hard to use for most things), this end is in no way, shape or form "dead".
Who in their right mind wants that? Basically the only application for it is to impress "friends", because you have nothing else to offer.
Hence they need "high level" access. This is well-known and unlikely to change.
I wonder whether trump and his ilk are just suicidal on a species level or utterly stupid. Or maybe the only thing that matters to Trump will be that "it happens after I am dead".
Nice. Exactly the incompetence and stupidity I am talking about. Could not have confirmed my words better myself. (No, I am not that AC.)