And now you are back to talking about HTTPS "job 1" which I am not arguing against. The point of the analogy was to illustrate these ideas: a) HTTPS does "job 1" just fine, though the actual threat for most people in that area is low (at least in a relative sense), and b) HTTPS does not play a role in the area that is a larger actual threat -- on the server side. The ultimate point being that the push to require HTTPS for everything is a "priority inversion" and gives non-technical internet uses a false sense of security, at least the ones still not completely numb from security fatigue. Also I just really wanted to make a car analogy.
Which means they will be sharing almost all of it since they have figured out that at a fundamental level there is little or nothing that is new and valuable in the latest "AI revolution".
Car analogy time: A friend of mine decides to drive into a bad neighborhood to go to a certain store, so I give him an HTTPS charm to hang from his rear view mirror. I promise that it will protect him while he's driving to the store. So he drives safely there, parks nearby, and gets mugged going into the store. The charm did its job of preventing the (less likely) loss of his wallet while driving, but nothing to prevent the (far more likely) theft once he has arrived.
Yes, but you are thinking of the classic job of https, not the new and bogus "https means it's legit, everything should be https" line of thinking, re Google.
They already have justification, and it's called "being successful". CEOs are the very few people who have had a substantial majority of their random decisions lead to success.
Or at least their decisions might as well be random as at all but the lowest levels of management there are far two many variables for anyone to have any meaningful control.
Yeah, when I was young, I used to fantasize about the government knowing what library books I had checked out. Now I know that I am nobody, just like 98% of everybody. My private information, aside from that necessary for financial transactions, is worthless. If you're not in the public eye, nobody gives a fsck.
I've spent half of my life living in the heartland and half on the left coast and I see both cultures as narrow-minded bigots. It is the so-called progressives that I find most amusing though, as they will defend a poor, backwards immigrant or inner city person to the last, affording great respect to their culture, while showing no such progressive behavior towards U.S. rural peoples and cultures. But then nobody on either side likes my opinion since I'm a moderate...
Why is this not modded up? Why is it so hard for people to understand that belief in AGW is compatible with dismissal of hysteria over weather and relatively short term climate changes? Too many "sciency" techies that really don't have perspective on the science.
Perspective, by the way, means here to step back, out of your bubble, and see the bigger picture -- what the science of climatology is really like, and most importantly, the larger time scales involved in measuring this effect.
This whole issue is getting so warped by politics, lazy journalism, and semi-religious fervor. The news people could just go ask a decent climatologist, "Hey, is this hot summer due to AGW?", but the answer is too complicated for a news bite, so they re-ask "Well could it be related to AGW?", and the answer is "well, sort of...", and then that becomes "Climate Boffin Blames Humans for Summer Swelter".
How many people have actually been seriously harmed or killed by something like what is described in these over-hyped "oh noes we need more security!" (read: give us more money) scenarios? Whatever number you come up with, it will be nothing compared to the damage cause by natural causes - storms, heat, cold, animals, not to mention the stupid things that humans do. I'll put my money towards limiting damage from those things, thank you. I wan't my power company to trim the trees and bury the power lines, to prevent days-long outages that kill people, instead of spending money on keeping hackers from flipping off a substation or generator for a few hours, ruining your cocktail party.
Slashdot Mirror
And now you are back to talking about HTTPS "job 1" which I am not arguing against.
The point of the analogy was to illustrate these ideas:
a) HTTPS does "job 1" just fine, though the actual threat for most people in that area is low (at least in a relative sense),
and b) HTTPS does not play a role in the area that is a larger actual threat -- on the server side.
The ultimate point being that the push to require HTTPS for everything is a "priority inversion" and gives non-technical internet uses a false sense of security, at least the ones still not completely numb from security fatigue.
Also I just really wanted to make a car analogy.
Classic reading comprehension failure. I am making no such argument.
Which means they will be sharing almost all of it since they have figured out that at a fundamental level there is little or nothing that is new and valuable in the latest "AI revolution".
What does HTTPS mean then? That it is potentially legitimate? So I guess a half-full glass really is better than a half-empty one...
Car analogy time: A friend of mine decides to drive into a bad neighborhood to go to a certain store, so I give him an HTTPS charm to hang from his rear view mirror. I promise that it will protect him while he's driving to the store. So he drives safely there, parks nearby, and gets mugged going into the store. The charm did its job of preventing the (less likely) loss of his wallet while driving, but nothing to prevent the (far more likely) theft once he has arrived.
Yes, but you are thinking of the classic job of https, not the new and bogus "https means it's legit, everything should be https" line of thinking, re Google.
I sleep better knowing that HTTPS has made us all safe from teh hax0rs.
We should change to a single time zone for the entire contiguous U.S. and call it "freedom time"
Something must be done to keep this atomic matter away from my children!
They already have justification, and it's called "being successful". CEOs are the very few people who have had a substantial majority of their random decisions lead to success.
Or at least their decisions might as well be random as at all but the lowest levels of management there are far two many variables for anyone to have any meaningful control.
True. Terrorism is nothing without the news.
I take it you missed the news about "metrexit".
Why do you hate innovation from the innovating innovators? Is it because you are afraid of change?
Yeah, and I might get hit by a meteorite while taking a ride on my bicycle too.
Yeah, when I was young, I used to fantasize about the government knowing what library books I had checked out. Now I know that I am nobody, just like 98% of everybody. My private information, aside from that necessary for financial transactions, is worthless. If you're not in the public eye, nobody gives a fsck.
I think they meant strategory.
I've spent half of my life living in the heartland and half on the left coast and I see both cultures as narrow-minded bigots. It is the so-called progressives that I find most amusing though, as they will defend a poor, backwards immigrant or inner city person to the last, affording great respect to their culture, while showing no such progressive behavior towards U.S. rural peoples and cultures. But then nobody on either side likes my opinion since I'm a moderate...
I can't believe you got modded up for such a lazy answer. Meta-moderation badly needed.
Why is this not modded up? Why is it so hard for people to understand that belief in AGW is compatible with dismissal of hysteria over weather and relatively short term climate changes? Too many "sciency" techies that really don't have perspective on the science.
Perspective, by the way, means here to step back, out of your bubble, and see the bigger picture -- what the science of climatology is really like, and most importantly, the larger time scales involved in measuring this effect.
This whole issue is getting so warped by politics, lazy journalism, and semi-religious fervor. The news people could just go ask a decent climatologist, "Hey, is this hot summer due to AGW?", but the answer is too complicated for a news bite, so they re-ask "Well could it be related to AGW?", and the answer is "well, sort of...", and then that becomes "Climate Boffin Blames Humans for Summer Swelter".
As an advanced Slashdot reader, I barely even read the fscking summary. I was just still annoyed from the earlier article about panic hacks.
Yes, let's just keep piling on these alarmist, security-as-a-religion articles. It will only hasten the coming of the post-security world.
How many people have actually been seriously harmed or killed by something like what is described in these over-hyped "oh noes we need more security!" (read: give us more money) scenarios? Whatever number you come up with, it will be nothing compared to the damage cause by natural causes - storms, heat, cold, animals, not to mention the stupid things that humans do. I'll put my money towards limiting damage from those things, thank you. I wan't my power company to trim the trees and bury the power lines, to prevent days-long outages that kill people, instead of spending money on keeping hackers from flipping off a substation or generator for a few hours, ruining your cocktail party.
Same here. I will also add that I'd trade money for less nonsense.
You must be new here.
This article set my BS detector on fire and they don't seem to care about all of that smoke.