If the sysadmin is stupid (like you are, for example), then any Unix is less secure than even unpatched Windows. Linux security is what you get when you combine a competent sysadmin and Linux. The same effect exists on Windows, but the results are not nearly as good and that is what makes Linux a secure OS and Windows a problematic one.
Especially the claimed implications. Most likely some "researcher" finding what they wanted to find, not what was there. Last credible estimates I heard are that dolphins are on th level of smart dogs.
Who else would train their replacements? And nobody expects good performance of the replacements (at least nobody in their right mind). They only expect them to be cheaper.
And no, it is not related, even if you see both as victim-blaming. It could very well be the case that these IT workers share a significant part of the blame. (If you do not believe that,then you must not have a lot of experience dealing with the average IT department.) Constructing a situation where that is true for a rape-victim is rather difficult. (Unless you think what some modern "feminists" think, namely that it is also rape if she changes her mind afterwards...)
Somebody has played too many build-up strategy games. Not only can we now not do this on earth, doing it on an airless rock is at least an order of magnitude more complicated. Lets revisit the idea in 50 years or so.
That is part of the problem. People have no clue what a well-running IT infrastructure looks like, because they have never seen one. I blame MS as a major contributor to this problem.
A screwdriver, knife, file, bottle of glue, nail, etc. all serve handily. If it is a physical object, it can be used and abused. Guess we have to get rid of physical objects. Or maybe of stupid story-writers, although that may prove harder to do.
There have not been enough incidents to justify this kind of panic-reaction. There is already a recall underway. Hence I think this additional things are not about consumer safety, but about propaganda. They probably want to drive home a "do not buy Samsung". It may also be plain stupidity, it gets really hard to separate that from politics these days.
And that, unfortunately, is the core problem. If the people affected were not "average", then they would not easily be replaceable by outsourcing. In many cases like these it turns out that the people affected did not do a good job and were much more a problem than an asset. Sure, service quality with outsourcing will get even worse, but if it had been good before, this would not have happened at all. That unpleasant truth behind all this is than the majority of IT workers are bad at their job, and quire a few suffer from inflated egos as well. Of course, one major driver for this problem is inadequate wages, which make people that would do a good job stay away from these jobs in the first place.
Indeed. This has probably been discovered 30 years ago by Unix-hackers and then abandoned as boring. Also not a risk to the system, just to the user that was stupid enough to chose a bad password.
No OS is impervious to user stupidity. In fact, for stupid users, Linux is probably less secure than Windows. For users with some clue, Linux is significantly more secure and this distance increases the more competent the user.
Probably Dunning-Kruger at work, i.e. they had no clue how to do this and they had no clue that they are clueless either and hence did not ask some actual experts. This is how most serious screwups happen: a combination of big ego and small skills.
Sending this thing to orbit has one effect: It gets more press and more fake legitimacy because sending it to orbit is difficult and expensive. It does absolutely nothing for validation and it makes measurements far harder. This is an attempt to keep the con going.
There is a little fundamental difference here (making your argument fundamentally flawed): Wright could observe birds and hence knew what he was trying to do was possible in principle. No such thing exists for this contraption here.
And what you say is wrong. The thrust generated is far too small for that. If you, say , power this thing with a radio-thermal generator, this generator would already generate more thrust from its thermal radiation.
And for anybody with some actual understanding of Science, this is already by far enough to lose interest. The thrust observed is very close to the error margins that are obvious and a good scientists does one thing in that case: Look for additional sources of errors. They do not claim what these frauds here claim.
For people with some actual understanding of Science, with has long hence been settled. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. At this time these people struggle to provide even regular proof.
But here is a thought: Sent it to space, power it with the Rossi E-Cat, and sent the whole thing on a course into the sun!
It is indeed funny how all contradictory indicators get swept under the carpet and all positive indicators get hyped. Usually this is a sure indicator for fraud or really bad science.
I do not have much faith in peer review. I have quite a bit of experience with reviewing papers and in several instances I was contacted by the publisher because I was the only one recommending rejection. After explanations, all of those got rejected, but without my review and explanation some fundamentally flawed papers that looked good on the surface would have been published. I know other reviewers with similar experiences.
Indeed. Same for the drug-issue. Just remember that hard drugs used to be legal about 100 years ago (at least in Europe) and it was not a big problem. It became a symptom of other problems when the economy went down the drain. Now the fight against drugs is itself a huge problem and causes far more damage than drugs ever could.
Slashdot Mirror
If the sysadmin is stupid (like you are, for example), then any Unix is less secure than even unpatched Windows. Linux security is what you get when you combine a competent sysadmin and Linux. The same effect exists on Windows, but the results are not nearly as good and that is what makes Linux a secure OS and Windows a problematic one.
Especially the claimed implications. Most likely some "researcher" finding what they wanted to find, not what was there. Last credible estimates I heard are that dolphins are on th level of smart dogs.
Who else would train their replacements? And nobody expects good performance of the replacements (at least nobody in their right mind). They only expect them to be cheaper.
And no, it is not related, even if you see both as victim-blaming. It could very well be the case that these IT workers share a significant part of the blame. (If you do not believe that,then you must not have a lot of experience dealing with the average IT department.) Constructing a situation where that is true for a rape-victim is rather difficult. (Unless you think what some modern "feminists" think, namely that it is also rape if she changes her mind afterwards...)
Somebody has played too many build-up strategy games. Not only can we now not do this on earth, doing it on an airless rock is at least an order of magnitude more complicated. Lets revisit the idea in 50 years or so.
That is part of the problem. People have no clue what a well-running IT infrastructure looks like, because they have never seen one. I blame MS as a major contributor to this problem.
And throwing in something completely unrelated is a valuable contribution.
A screwdriver, knife, file, bottle of glue, nail, etc. all serve handily. If it is a physical object, it can be used and abused. Guess we have to get rid of physical objects. Or maybe of stupid story-writers, although that may prove harder to do.
There have not been enough incidents to justify this kind of panic-reaction. There is already a recall underway. Hence I think this additional things are not about consumer safety, but about propaganda. They probably want to drive home a "do not buy Samsung". It may also be plain stupidity, it gets really hard to separate that from politics these days.
Engineering is fine, as long as you are good at it. Being a semi-competent "web developer" or "system manager" is not engineering. It is a problem.
And that, unfortunately, is the core problem. If the people affected were not "average", then they would not easily be replaceable by outsourcing. In many cases like these it turns out that the people affected did not do a good job and were much more a problem than an asset. Sure, service quality with outsourcing will get even worse, but if it had been good before, this would not have happened at all. That unpleasant truth behind all this is than the majority of IT workers are bad at their job, and quire a few suffer from inflated egos as well. Of course, one major driver for this problem is inadequate wages, which make people that would do a good job stay away from these jobs in the first place.
No it is not. It is a "user-kit". A rootkit serves to retain root-access.
Indeed. This has probably been discovered 30 years ago by Unix-hackers and then abandoned as boring. Also not a risk to the system, just to the user that was stupid enough to chose a bad password.
No OS is impervious to user stupidity. In fact, for stupid users, Linux is probably less secure than Windows. For users with some clue, Linux is significantly more secure and this distance increases the more competent the user.
It does kill humans though....
And General John D. Ripper added that Agent Orange does not produce harmful chemicals when combined with nuclear explosions, so all is well!
Probably Dunning-Kruger at work, i.e. they had no clue how to do this and they had no clue that they are clueless either and hence did not ask some actual experts. This is how most serious screwups happen: a combination of big ego and small skills.
Sending this thing to orbit has one effect: It gets more press and more fake legitimacy because sending it to orbit is difficult and expensive. It does absolutely nothing for validation and it makes measurements far harder. This is an attempt to keep the con going.
There is a little fundamental difference here (making your argument fundamentally flawed): Wright could observe birds and hence knew what he was trying to do was possible in principle. No such thing exists for this contraption here.
And what you say is wrong. The thrust generated is far too small for that. If you, say , power this thing with a radio-thermal generator, this generator would already generate more thrust from its thermal radiation.
And for anybody with some actual understanding of Science, this is already by far enough to lose interest. The thrust observed is very close to the error margins that are obvious and a good scientists does one thing in that case: Look for additional sources of errors. They do not claim what these frauds here claim.
For people with some actual understanding of Science, with has long hence been settled. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. At this time these people struggle to provide even regular proof.
But here is a thought: Sent it to space, power it with the Rossi E-Cat, and sent the whole thing on a course into the sun!
It is indeed funny how all contradictory indicators get swept under the carpet and all positive indicators get hyped. Usually this is a sure indicator for fraud or really bad science.
I do not have much faith in peer review. I have quite a bit of experience with reviewing papers and in several instances I was contacted by the publisher because I was the only one recommending rejection. After explanations, all of those got rejected, but without my review and explanation some fundamentally flawed papers that looked good on the surface would have been published. I know other reviewers with similar experiences.
Indeed. Same for the drug-issue. Just remember that hard drugs used to be legal about 100 years ago (at least in Europe) and it was not a big problem. It became a symptom of other problems when the economy went down the drain. Now the fight against drugs is itself a huge problem and causes far more damage than drugs ever could.
That is what I used to assume.