What kind of demented comment is that? These kinds of studies are very, very obviously done after the fact, i.e. adults are asked whether they used the respective drug as a teen and then they look for effects.
To make things cheaper. Historically, these were going over phone lines or dedicated wires. Of course, if people with zero understanding of what Internet security requires implement such solutions, it will typically cause an epic fail. And look, it does.
They probably charged them for the time of the policemen carrying these. I think this should be criminal behavior and have someone land someone in really hot water.
Actually, it is an indication that they are paranoid and insane. You know, the kind of people that should be professionally evaluated whether they are a danger to society.
Actually, we do not. Many/most roofers forgo safety measures because they cost time. The usual severe injury for them is falling off the roof. It just takes one second of bad luck to begin sliding.
We do make things as safe as seems reasonable in comparison to the value of the work being done and the productivity reduction by the safety measures and what is "reasonable" is entirely up to debate.
So what they found is a sharp step-response. Unusual, in particular with this severity, but not unheard of. Still, finding these things before doing large trials is what the safety-trials are for. And such outcomes must be very rare indeed, or this would not be news-worthy at all.
Most likely explanation is simply a black swan, i.e. bad luck with the regular effects of the medication itself, no errors made anywhere. This is newsworthy only because it is so rare. And in the best case, it will serve to highlight some particular problem with a specific substance that was not known before.
I do not agree. Many jobs are risky. For example, many roofers get seriously injured or killed before they reach retirement. Same for scaffolders. Getting crippled by RSI is a real risk for IT people. And so on.
A sane discussion is not about whether to do it or not, but about what level of risk is acceptable in relation to what good the work does overall. Of course, the individuals that take the risk should be well informed, compensated and insured. In some cases it may be a good idea to exclude people that support children or a spouse. But those are trade-offs, not fundamental questions.
As long as participants are informed accurately about the risks and are compensated and insured well, I have no problem with that. Many jobs come with health risks up to and including death. This one is not really that special.
Indeed. These trials can, by their very nature, never be completely safe. They are still worthwhile because what comes out of them can eventually safe a lot of lives. Cutting corners, etc. is however not acceptable at all, as that will deceive participants about the actual risks and hence remove their informed consent.
Indeed. Test with a small group first. Nothing in a safety-focused trial can be perfectly safe, of course, but then life itself is far from perfectly safe, so the trade-off is worthwhile.
And cases like this are rare, while trials like this are not. The whole thing is only newsworthy because this kind of outcome is so exceptionally rare. I expect that more people get maimed or killed on the way to this type of trial than by participating in it. But that would not be newsworthy at all, as society has accepted a lot of tragedy from traffic accidents, despite them not being any less horrible.
Very much this. Example: An intelligent novice describes in documentation what his thing does. Mostly worthless. Somebody experienced and wise describes in addition why it does it this way, what the implications are and what alternatives where not selected and why. Google hires the first kind.
Google is trying to get very good people on the cheap. Instead they get very intelligent people that lack wisdom and experience on the cheap. I think in the long run that will backfire massively and I also think this effect is already visible.
Drop everything and join us *now*! may be a great test to see how exploitable a candidate is to corporate whim, but it's a lousy way to get top-shelf employees.
Indeed. This way you get sort-of the "crop of the cream", i.e. the worst of the best ones.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of demented comment is that? These kinds of studies are very, very obviously done after the fact, i.e. adults are asked whether they used the respective drug as a teen and then they look for effects.
This is going to get very interesting as the IoT bubble continues inflating.
I disagree. It is just going to be all the same very old problems again, this time even more stupid because are all are known.
This is what happens when "cheaper than possible" personnel implements security-critical functionality. These people have no clue what they are doing.
To make things cheaper. Historically, these were going over phone lines or dedicated wires. Of course, if people with zero understanding of what Internet security requires implement such solutions, it will typically cause an epic fail. And look, it does.
The OP managed to make the term "local vulnerability" useless. That rather strongly implies he does now know what it means. No thin ice here.
If you have a remote vulnerability, then you already have a remote vulnerability. Get at least the basic terminology right!
Read again. Their exploit code is against 3.18, but they say that 3.8 and later is affected.
A local exploit has no "remote exploitation risk" by its very definition. Your statement just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
They probably charged them for the time of the policemen carrying these. I think this should be criminal behavior and have someone land someone in really hot water.
Actually, it is an indication that they are paranoid and insane. You know, the kind of people that should be professionally evaluated whether they are a danger to society.
Well, everybody knows this is untrue, so there.
Actually, we do not. Many/most roofers forgo safety measures because they cost time. The usual severe injury for them is falling off the roof. It just takes one second of bad luck to begin sliding.
We do make things as safe as seems reasonable in comparison to the value of the work being done and the productivity reduction by the safety measures and what is "reasonable" is entirely up to debate.
It is believed
By whom, and with what evidence?
For example, the fascists running the 3rd Reich claimed things pretty much like this. I think that makes the claim highly suspect.
Reminds me of what GLaDOS says before one of the trials in "Portal" ;-)
So you think people have no agency in deciding how they want to earn money? That is stupid.
Aspirin can actually kill at almost any dosage. It is just exceptionally rare to happen.
So what they found is a sharp step-response. Unusual, in particular with this severity, but not unheard of. Still, finding these things before doing large trials is what the safety-trials are for. And such outcomes must be very rare indeed, or this would not be news-worthy at all.
Most likely explanation is simply a black swan, i.e. bad luck with the regular effects of the medication itself, no errors made anywhere. This is newsworthy only because it is so rare. And in the best case, it will serve to highlight some particular problem with a specific substance that was not known before.
I do not agree. Many jobs are risky. For example, many roofers get seriously injured or killed before they reach retirement. Same for scaffolders. Getting crippled by RSI is a real risk for IT people. And so on.
A sane discussion is not about whether to do it or not, but about what level of risk is acceptable in relation to what good the work does overall. Of course, the individuals that take the risk should be well informed, compensated and insured. In some cases it may be a good idea to exclude people that support children or a spouse. But those are trade-offs, not fundamental questions.
As long as participants are informed accurately about the risks and are compensated and insured well, I have no problem with that. Many jobs come with health risks up to and including death. This one is not really that special.
Indeed. These trials can, by their very nature, never be completely safe. They are still worthwhile because what comes out of them can eventually safe a lot of lives. Cutting corners, etc. is however not acceptable at all, as that will deceive participants about the actual risks and hence remove their informed consent.
Indeed. Test with a small group first. Nothing in a safety-focused trial can be perfectly safe, of course, but then life itself is far from perfectly safe, so the trade-off is worthwhile.
And cases like this are rare, while trials like this are not. The whole thing is only newsworthy because this kind of outcome is so exceptionally rare. I expect that more people get maimed or killed on the way to this type of trial than by participating in it. But that would not be newsworthy at all, as society has accepted a lot of tragedy from traffic accidents, despite them not being any less horrible.
Very much this. Example: An intelligent novice describes in documentation what his thing does. Mostly worthless. Somebody experienced and wise describes in addition why it does it this way, what the implications are and what alternatives where not selected and why. Google hires the first kind.
Very true.
Google is trying to get very good people on the cheap. Instead they get very intelligent people that lack wisdom and experience on the cheap. I think in the long run that will backfire massively and I also think this effect is already visible.
Drop everything and join us *now*! may be a great test to see how exploitable a candidate is to corporate whim, but it's a lousy way to get top-shelf employees.
Indeed. This way you get sort-of the "crop of the cream", i.e. the worst of the best ones.