Didn't Google just a month or so ago report record profits in spite of the downturn and are yet cutting staff?
Are companies really slashing staff because things are looking bad or do many that are doing just as well as ever see this as an excuse to try and slash some dead weight without too many questions being asked? Or is it just because they think despite profits being up now things are going to get worse and they want to prepare?
"PS3 games aren't up on piratebay for a reason, while Xbox games are."
Yes, but it's not the reason you're stating.
None of the XBox 360's downloadable games are up on pirate bay which is what you were referring to.
What is up there are retail games and they're up there because there are a bunch of chipped 360s out there whilst there are, afaik, no chipped PS3s.
I can only guess you've never used XBox live arcade as it's really little different to the Sony store, it's arguably easier and more responsive to use in fact and has a bigger catalog with a wider range of games for all ages. The Wii store is largely the same story also.
I agree with what you're saying, but I think your examples miss the reality that Microsoft has if anything been a leader in online content for consoles- see the downloadable TV/movies section, netflix integration, live arcade, community games, general DLC, Xbox classics and such as examples of this. Sony has most of this too now, but not all of it and with smaller catalogs, the Wii is probably trailing furthest in this sector, but it didn't have the greatest online setup to start with. It's not something Nintendo was too fussed about and yet it's not harmed their market position so I suppose there's an argument there that the market isn't too fussed about online as a priority just yet.
"Name one single well-known DRM example where this has actually been the case, that the game wasn't pirated within the first week."
That's being a bit charitable I think, it's probably more apt to ask people to name one that wasn't pirated before it's official release date because there's always stores that get it early and get it out to the people who release it.
Hell, I buy my 360 games from shopto.net in the UK and they ship as soon as stock arrives not at release which means I usually get games destined for a Friday release as early as Tues/Weds.
"Hell, I'm as straight as an arrow and Prop 8 gives me pause regards moving to silicon valley."
Same here, I'd certainly think twice about a state or nation that actively supports discrimination, because once the religious groups and such pushing this have achieved their goal of discrimination against one group, they then move on to the next.
The religious groups pushing this aren't pushing it just because they despise gay marriage, it's a power grab simple as. These groups are the same as those that oppose women bishops and such in the UK also, they start with the easy targets to gain momentum then move up the line. That's why it must be stamped out now regardless of what your personal opinion about gay marriage is.
It's because skilled gay people are more likely to keep the fuck away from California or perhaps even the US as a whole as a result, that's the problem.
The IWF was created to appease the police who were otherwise going to prosecute ISPs and the ISPs were also due to face government legislation back in the 90s otherwise.
Accept the watch list, or face criminal action and legislation. That doesn't particularly sound like free choice to implement it or not to me. I'm not even sure what ISPs don't implement it, I doubt the list is particularly very big. Certainly the list of ISPs that do implement it on the IWF website is pretty comprehensive. Besides even if the free market did come in to play and the ISPs that didn't implement it started growing in size how much choice do you think they'd have to continue not to implement it?
lol, so you think they're sacrificing themselves to make other people more powerful?
That's certainly one of the most impressive conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
The biggest flaw with your argument is that whilst they could do the good stuff without needing the EU as you mention, they could also go for a power grab without the EU, therefore, your theory makes no sense unless it is the case that you truly believe the 3 main British political parties have a tendancy for sacrificing themselves for the benefit of foreign powers.
In fact I'll help you with your next theory, maybe that's it, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and all their followers are in fact French and it's their plan to take over Europe.
That might as well be what you're suggesting with a complaint the the EU boycots groups who promote racism.
You see, the problem is, the parties you're suggesting should be treated with freedom and liberty are parties that aim to infringe on other people's freedoms and liberties.
Really, my heart bleeds that you're upset that the EU has done a lot of work to prevent another rise of Nazi sympathyisers, after all, we all know how well that went last time in Europe. In working against these groups they're still defending the rights and liberties of the majority even if it is at the expense of rather vile, racist, xenophobic minority- sure they have rights too, just not at the expense of everyone else I'm afraid. Quite how you and they can complain about a loss of liberties when their whole aim and goal is to deprive everyone else of their liberties I really don't know.
"What other CEOs have personally made noticeable changes to the world?"
Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Fred Smith, Lakshmi Mittal, George David, Richard Fuld, Jeffrey Immelt, Henning Kagermann, Alan Lafley, James Sinegal, Michael Dell, Satoru Iwata, Rupert Murdoch, Steven Reinemund, Larry Fink, Peter Rose, Terry Leahy, Eric Schmidt, Charlie Ergen, Bill Gates...
Need I go on?
"This isn't worship"
You indirectly suggested Steve Jobs is the only CEO who has personally made noticable changes to the world. It's hard to imagine how that could be anything other than worship.
No doubt, Jobs has done an amazing Job, but he's certainly not unique. Some of the names above changed it for the good, some for the worse, but Jobs sits at neither end of the scale. Whilst he may not be as evil as Murdoch he's also not been the philanthropist with his fortunes that Bill Gates has either. If you go beyond CEOs he's even less of a rarity- what about Tim Berners-Lee, what about countless political leaders and the like for example?
I know it's nice for some Apple fans to take things a little to the extreme and suggest Jobs really is Jesus, but seriously? Do you really believe Jobs is so special he's changed the world more so then many other CEOs or people?
I'd have more respect for the guy if him and Apple were a little more philathropic.
Job's achievements should be recognised for what they are- impressive achievements as a leader in the technology industry, but to blow it up to be more than that, to suggest that he stands out as entirely unique in the scale of his achievements or that he's even necessarily a nice man is ignorant of the facts.
"MP3 players were drab and virtually useless before the iPod - a few years later everyone had one."
I've never understood why people make comments like this. The iPod was a step backwards in terms of features and such, I'm not even convinced iTunes is any easier to use than the icon I could just drag and drop my MP3s into in Windows either. The iPod was actually quite a late arrival in the MP3 market, many forget that MP3s were already becoming somewhat mainstream (we already had support in some car sound systems for example). It's certainly fair to credit the iPod as the product that took the mainstream, but not necessarily the product that acted as a catalyst for mainstream- the fact you could store thousands of tracks in the space of half a portable CD player and not need to carry media around was already a good enough catalyst. People would've bought players regardless, but it was the style and prestige factor of the iPod that got it most of those sales, as well of course as it being in the right place at the right time- arriving just as the MP3 market was already taking off.
I don't disagree that Jobs and his marketing team were excellent at creating hype and shifting units, but I'm still not convinced it's because the products are necessarily ground breaking, or even that high quality (battery problems, easily scratched screens etc.?).
Apple under Steve has been good at what designer clothes companies are good at, building a brand that people want because they feel it gives them that extra bit of prestige. People will take Armani jeans over some bog standard jeans if they have the opportunity, the bog standard ones may even wear better and be more durable, but for many, the name matters most.
I agree with you more on the iPhone though, certainly it seems to have pushed other companies into gear in some respects, but I think it's worked both ways in a way. Apple came along with a phone with not too many features but with a really nice looking UI and a much more tightly integrated experience. This has pushed other companies to follow, but on the same note, Apple has been pushed to follow the likes of Nokia with 3G, GPS and so on also when it became clear the iPhone was losing customers because of lack of said features so it has been a two way street. The underlying point though is that yes, without Apple, existing phone manufacturers wouldn't have had that much needed push.
Air combat just aint like that and hasn't been for a couple of decades, probably the last real dogfights were in the Falklands in '82.
It's now all about launching missiles from beyond visible range, a UAV can do this as well as any jet. Countermeasures wise it's probably more important to have good stealth, a low heat signature and a bunch of flairs. I don't see why a UAV should be any worse than most modern jets.
I do think moving on a few decades when stealth technology and low heat signatures as seen in the F22 are a bit more commonplace that we may well go back to an era of dogfighting as missiles lose their ability to track targets from long distance but for the time being I'm not convinced UAVs need particularly be in a disadvantage in air to air combat against most the jets they'll be up against ('50s - '80s MiGs etc.), the fact most UAVs have a fairly stealthy design means they probably even have the element of suprise.
"The EU is the largest assembly of corrupt and indadequate politicians you will ever find."
I disagree, this past couple of years they've done a better job of protecting civil liberties than British parliament has for it's own citizens, that's not saying much but I'd say from this that they're at least better than Britain's Labour government.
"Yes, the kid used a gun to kill his parents. However, he could also have just used a butcher knife from the kitchen."
Could he? was he physically strong enough to overpower both parents and really do that? Was he far gone enough to be able to butcher someone rather than simply pull a trigger?
Also, you say the father was responsible, if his kid could do something like this is it really that responsible to have a gun in the house in the first place?
You may be right, but let's not speculate and pretend it is fact. It's much more complicated than just saying he'd have done it whether there was a gun there or not anyway. Extending to other cases for example, could someone like the guy behind Virginia tech, already an introverted loner really have got hold of a gun illegaly from a criminal gang to carry out that masacre if they couldn't be aquired legally? If he couldn't have got hold of a gun could he really have killed 30 odd people with a knife or other melee weapon instead?
There are certainly cases where tighter rules on gun ownership work, I'd say this one is borderline, but if not only because he only killed 2 people, had he had a brother and sister for example and tried to kill them all in the same room for example then it's questionable whether he could still have done it without access to a gun, whilst with a gun he could quite easily have taken down all 4.
...we have to have cables under the med? If they haven't noticed, you can go from Portugal in Western Europe down to the southern tip of South Africa all the way to the North Eastern tip of Russia by land.
Sure you still have the earthquake issue but you don't have the boat issue and it's not as if gas and oil pipelines don't already have to deal with these problems along these routes.
Is it really easier and cheaper to run cables undersea than over land? even when maintenance is taken into account?
I can understand the pacific/atlantic cables, but the EMEA region and Asia? Is it just down to wanting to have cables that take the most direct route to drop latency as much as possible?
Impressive because I thought Guitar Hero 2 was actually the worst of the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games that I've played, although I'd imagine Metallica/Aerosmith etc. could be worse but I haven't played them.
Guitar Hero 2 and Rock Band had far better track lists imo, and Rock Band specifically had more interesting and fun features. Guitar Hero 3 felt like it was just released to profit off the success of 2 until they'd had time to build a new version that actually did have new features (i.e. World Tour), it didn't bring anything new and it's tracks might as well have been released as DLC with a lot of them just being crap although there were of course some gems in there.
I'm quite surprised then of all of them that it's 3 that has come out on top. It did have one redeeming feature, I really liked the Guitar, although the buttons on mine become stuck and stop working if you don't play for a couple of months and you have to press them lots to ease them up and make them sensitive enough to actually stand a chance on harder difficulties again.
One thing's for sure though, there's just too many of them now to keep up with what's what, and the fact the Guitar Hero World Tour drumset was different to the Rock Band one seemed annoying- no way in hell I'd pay that much to change for example! For reference, I believe we now have for the current gen. consoles:
Guitar Hero 2 Guitar Hero 3 Guitar Hero Aerosmith Guitar Hero Metallica Guitar Hero World Tour Rock Band Rock Band 2
and that's all in a release space of about 2 years. One every 3 - 4 months all with DLC that sometimes overlaps but can't be used between versions (although they are rectifying that somewhat in newer versions)? Seems a bit much, but then I guess with these kind of profits, who can blame them?
I still will not agree with you, simply because you're wrong.
People are erratic, they cannot be trusted to follow a particular set of procedures. Computers will always follow procedures set for them.
To give you a simple example, think of the typical password reset. It's good practice for people to not have the same password for years on end, it's debateable how often people should reset their password, a good time period seems to be around 3 months. If you tell people they need to change their password every 3 months they wont do it. If you enforce it as a policy, they have no choice.
Another good example is locking your workstation when you leave your desk, again, people simply wont do it. If however you force a lock when the screensaver comes on then it's at least better than not at all.
To suggest policies are as important as technology is a good path to having an easily exploitable system. It has been proven time and time again that social engineering is the easiest way into a system and this is the weakness that plagues policies and processes. The very reason it is prevalent in fact is because the technological barrier is just so much harder to break in a well built system. The social side is easily the weakest point to attack and of all the greatest hacks of our time the majority fall back on the weakness of people as a security barrier.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have policies at all certainly, but I am saying that you should always work to expect them to be broken, if you assume they wont and rely on them then your network might as well just be wide open. There are a couple of policies that are essential and can indirectly boost security such as pointing out people will be sacked if data is leaked because they didn't follow procedure, but what if they forget to follow procedure as people often do? Your system hasn't received any security benefit as a result of the policy and so the leak has occured regardless of your policies.
It is somewhat true that no system can be completely secure, but policies are like your average garden fence - it'll keep people in or out if they play by the rules and don't jump over it, but it's worthless otherwise, technology is more like fort knox in comparison- a hell of a lot harder to breakthrough even if it is technically possible and hard enough that there's a good chance the attacker will get caught in the process before it's too late.
Just as a case study, when Valve had the Half-Life 2 software leaked it was because they hadn't patched Outlook. It's very likely they had a security policy to ensure patches like this were installed, but they obviously weren't followed. If however they were to use an automatic update service like WSUS then they wouldn't have had this problem.
"We believe we've built site in such a way that minimizes security risks and we've implemented numerous policies and procedures company-wide to increase security."
This is by far your biggest security threat that you should worry about before any penetration testing. The idea that implementing policies and procedures will somehow increase security. Relying on humans to adhere correctly to policies and procedures as a security measure is probably a sure fire way to end up with a security leak.
You should be working to secure your app. so you don't need these policies and procedures. This will likely end up with a system that is a little more frustrating for your users, but if security is your number 1 criteria for the application then that's the compromise.
You may think to yourself, well, anyone not following procedures risks the sack so they'll have to follow them, but this misses the fact that your CEO is as likely to ignore policies and procedures as anyone and he certainly aint going to sack himself, no, it'll be all your fault. It's also worth pointing out that even the threat of the sack isn't enough to convince some people to pay attention and realise the rules are there for a reason not to mention the fact that to be fair on users, sometimes it's just human nature to forget to do something.
What, and risk having him spend the next 10 years in litigation against the Burger King next door claiming they stole some meat from one of his burgers?
"First of all, the economy will be just about to turn around (the media won't tell you, but they also didn't tell you one year ago that we were in a recession)."
To be fair, from what I understand a recession is defined as two periods (quarters) of negative growth. As such you don't necessarily know you're in a recession until you could potentially already be on your way out of one. It basically means you could be in a recession for just short of 6 months before you actually know officially.
Similarly, we could already be on our way out of a recession although it's unlikely. As you say though, there's a lag in finding out either way.
Or even more amusingly, hide the keys for Bluray's DRM in the Bluray logo, although it would be more fun to not hide it and just make an ASCII Bluray logo out of the keys they tried to magic off of the net claiming the string was copyrighted or whatever when they were first released.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Google just a month or so ago report record profits in spite of the downturn and are yet cutting staff?
Are companies really slashing staff because things are looking bad or do many that are doing just as well as ever see this as an excuse to try and slash some dead weight without too many questions being asked? Or is it just because they think despite profits being up now things are going to get worse and they want to prepare?
"PS3 games aren't up on piratebay for a reason, while Xbox games are."
Yes, but it's not the reason you're stating.
None of the XBox 360's downloadable games are up on pirate bay which is what you were referring to.
What is up there are retail games and they're up there because there are a bunch of chipped 360s out there whilst there are, afaik, no chipped PS3s.
I can only guess you've never used XBox live arcade as it's really little different to the Sony store, it's arguably easier and more responsive to use in fact and has a bigger catalog with a wider range of games for all ages. The Wii store is largely the same story also.
I agree with what you're saying, but I think your examples miss the reality that Microsoft has if anything been a leader in online content for consoles- see the downloadable TV/movies section, netflix integration, live arcade, community games, general DLC, Xbox classics and such as examples of this. Sony has most of this too now, but not all of it and with smaller catalogs, the Wii is probably trailing furthest in this sector, but it didn't have the greatest online setup to start with. It's not something Nintendo was too fussed about and yet it's not harmed their market position so I suppose there's an argument there that the market isn't too fussed about online as a priority just yet.
"Name one single well-known DRM example where this has actually been the case, that the game wasn't pirated within the first week."
That's being a bit charitable I think, it's probably more apt to ask people to name one that wasn't pirated before it's official release date because there's always stores that get it early and get it out to the people who release it.
Hell, I buy my 360 games from shopto.net in the UK and they ship as soon as stock arrives not at release which means I usually get games destined for a Friday release as early as Tues/Weds.
Because back then that was the default state and California was on a positive slope away from discrimination.
Now however it looks like the trend is reversing and California is moving towards an agenda of greater discrimination.
Being somewhere progressive is a lot more attractive than being somewhere that's going downhill.
"Hell, I'm as straight as an arrow and Prop 8 gives me pause regards moving to silicon valley."
Same here, I'd certainly think twice about a state or nation that actively supports discrimination, because once the religious groups and such pushing this have achieved their goal of discrimination against one group, they then move on to the next.
The religious groups pushing this aren't pushing it just because they despise gay marriage, it's a power grab simple as. These groups are the same as those that oppose women bishops and such in the UK also, they start with the easy targets to gain momentum then move up the line. That's why it must be stamped out now regardless of what your personal opinion about gay marriage is.
It's because skilled gay people are more likely to keep the fuck away from California or perhaps even the US as a whole as a result, that's the problem.
As it was only the admin network effected, then not unless all that's required to start a world war is that someone spoofs an e-mail as such:
To: Rear Admiral Whoever
From: Vladmir Putin
Subject: lol u suck
im in ur macines stealing ur data
Not that free.
The IWF was created to appease the police who were otherwise going to prosecute ISPs and the ISPs were also due to face government legislation back in the 90s otherwise.
Accept the watch list, or face criminal action and legislation. That doesn't particularly sound like free choice to implement it or not to me. I'm not even sure what ISPs don't implement it, I doubt the list is particularly very big. Certainly the list of ISPs that do implement it on the IWF website is pretty comprehensive. Besides even if the free market did come in to play and the ISPs that didn't implement it started growing in size how much choice do you think they'd have to continue not to implement it?
lol, so you think they're sacrificing themselves to make other people more powerful?
That's certainly one of the most impressive conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
The biggest flaw with your argument is that whilst they could do the good stuff without needing the EU as you mention, they could also go for a power grab without the EU, therefore, your theory makes no sense unless it is the case that you truly believe the 3 main British political parties have a tendancy for sacrificing themselves for the benefit of foreign powers.
In fact I'll help you with your next theory, maybe that's it, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and all their followers are in fact French and it's their plan to take over Europe.
You mean like the right to murder?
That might as well be what you're suggesting with a complaint the the EU boycots groups who promote racism.
You see, the problem is, the parties you're suggesting should be treated with freedom and liberty are parties that aim to infringe on other people's freedoms and liberties.
Really, my heart bleeds that you're upset that the EU has done a lot of work to prevent another rise of Nazi sympathyisers, after all, we all know how well that went last time in Europe. In working against these groups they're still defending the rights and liberties of the majority even if it is at the expense of rather vile, racist, xenophobic minority- sure they have rights too, just not at the expense of everyone else I'm afraid. Quite how you and they can complain about a loss of liberties when their whole aim and goal is to deprive everyone else of their liberties I really don't know.
"What other CEOs have personally made noticeable changes to the world?"
Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Fred Smith, Lakshmi Mittal, George David, Richard Fuld, Jeffrey Immelt, Henning Kagermann, Alan Lafley, James Sinegal, Michael Dell, Satoru Iwata, Rupert Murdoch, Steven Reinemund, Larry Fink, Peter Rose, Terry Leahy, Eric Schmidt, Charlie Ergen, Bill Gates...
Need I go on?
"This isn't worship"
You indirectly suggested Steve Jobs is the only CEO who has personally made noticable changes to the world. It's hard to imagine how that could be anything other than worship.
No doubt, Jobs has done an amazing Job, but he's certainly not unique. Some of the names above changed it for the good, some for the worse, but Jobs sits at neither end of the scale. Whilst he may not be as evil as Murdoch he's also not been the philanthropist with his fortunes that Bill Gates has either. If you go beyond CEOs he's even less of a rarity- what about Tim Berners-Lee, what about countless political leaders and the like for example?
I know it's nice for some Apple fans to take things a little to the extreme and suggest Jobs really is Jesus, but seriously? Do you really believe Jobs is so special he's changed the world more so then many other CEOs or people?
I'd have more respect for the guy if him and Apple were a little more philathropic.
Job's achievements should be recognised for what they are- impressive achievements as a leader in the technology industry, but to blow it up to be more than that, to suggest that he stands out as entirely unique in the scale of his achievements or that he's even necessarily a nice man is ignorant of the facts.
"MP3 players were drab and virtually useless before the iPod - a few years later everyone had one."
I've never understood why people make comments like this. The iPod was a step backwards in terms of features and such, I'm not even convinced iTunes is any easier to use than the icon I could just drag and drop my MP3s into in Windows either. The iPod was actually quite a late arrival in the MP3 market, many forget that MP3s were already becoming somewhat mainstream (we already had support in some car sound systems for example). It's certainly fair to credit the iPod as the product that took the mainstream, but not necessarily the product that acted as a catalyst for mainstream- the fact you could store thousands of tracks in the space of half a portable CD player and not need to carry media around was already a good enough catalyst. People would've bought players regardless, but it was the style and prestige factor of the iPod that got it most of those sales, as well of course as it being in the right place at the right time- arriving just as the MP3 market was already taking off.
I don't disagree that Jobs and his marketing team were excellent at creating hype and shifting units, but I'm still not convinced it's because the products are necessarily ground breaking, or even that high quality (battery problems, easily scratched screens etc.?).
Apple under Steve has been good at what designer clothes companies are good at, building a brand that people want because they feel it gives them that extra bit of prestige. People will take Armani jeans over some bog standard jeans if they have the opportunity, the bog standard ones may even wear better and be more durable, but for many, the name matters most.
I agree with you more on the iPhone though, certainly it seems to have pushed other companies into gear in some respects, but I think it's worked both ways in a way. Apple came along with a phone with not too many features but with a really nice looking UI and a much more tightly integrated experience. This has pushed other companies to follow, but on the same note, Apple has been pushed to follow the likes of Nokia with 3G, GPS and so on also when it became clear the iPhone was losing customers because of lack of said features so it has been a two way street. The underlying point though is that yes, without Apple, existing phone manufacturers wouldn't have had that much needed push.
Air combat just aint like that and hasn't been for a couple of decades, probably the last real dogfights were in the Falklands in '82.
It's now all about launching missiles from beyond visible range, a UAV can do this as well as any jet. Countermeasures wise it's probably more important to have good stealth, a low heat signature and a bunch of flairs. I don't see why a UAV should be any worse than most modern jets.
I do think moving on a few decades when stealth technology and low heat signatures as seen in the F22 are a bit more commonplace that we may well go back to an era of dogfighting as missiles lose their ability to track targets from long distance but for the time being I'm not convinced UAVs need particularly be in a disadvantage in air to air combat against most the jets they'll be up against ('50s - '80s MiGs etc.), the fact most UAVs have a fairly stealthy design means they probably even have the element of suprise.
"The EU is the largest assembly of corrupt and indadequate politicians you will ever find."
I disagree, this past couple of years they've done a better job of protecting civil liberties than British parliament has for it's own citizens, that's not saying much but I'd say from this that they're at least better than Britain's Labour government.
"Yes, the kid used a gun to kill his parents. However, he could also have just used a butcher knife from the kitchen."
Could he? was he physically strong enough to overpower both parents and really do that? Was he far gone enough to be able to butcher someone rather than simply pull a trigger?
Also, you say the father was responsible, if his kid could do something like this is it really that responsible to have a gun in the house in the first place?
You may be right, but let's not speculate and pretend it is fact. It's much more complicated than just saying he'd have done it whether there was a gun there or not anyway. Extending to other cases for example, could someone like the guy behind Virginia tech, already an introverted loner really have got hold of a gun illegaly from a criminal gang to carry out that masacre if they couldn't be aquired legally? If he couldn't have got hold of a gun could he really have killed 30 odd people with a knife or other melee weapon instead?
There are certainly cases where tighter rules on gun ownership work, I'd say this one is borderline, but if not only because he only killed 2 people, had he had a brother and sister for example and tried to kill them all in the same room for example then it's questionable whether he could still have done it without access to a gun, whilst with a gun he could quite easily have taken down all 4.
...we have to have cables under the med? If they haven't noticed, you can go from Portugal in Western Europe down to the southern tip of South Africa all the way to the North Eastern tip of Russia by land.
Sure you still have the earthquake issue but you don't have the boat issue and it's not as if gas and oil pipelines don't already have to deal with these problems along these routes.
Is it really easier and cheaper to run cables undersea than over land? even when maintenance is taken into account?
I can understand the pacific/atlantic cables, but the EMEA region and Asia? Is it just down to wanting to have cables that take the most direct route to drop latency as much as possible?
"There is life outside the internet."
Unfortunately for most of us on Slashdot, that's simply not true ;)
The analogy failed on me because I saw smothering escargot in ketchup as a positive thing :(
The first sentence was supposed to read Guitar Hero 3 as my worst not Guitar Hero 2!
Impressive because I thought Guitar Hero 2 was actually the worst of the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games that I've played, although I'd imagine Metallica/Aerosmith etc. could be worse but I haven't played them.
Guitar Hero 2 and Rock Band had far better track lists imo, and Rock Band specifically had more interesting and fun features. Guitar Hero 3 felt like it was just released to profit off the success of 2 until they'd had time to build a new version that actually did have new features (i.e. World Tour), it didn't bring anything new and it's tracks might as well have been released as DLC with a lot of them just being crap although there were of course some gems in there.
I'm quite surprised then of all of them that it's 3 that has come out on top. It did have one redeeming feature, I really liked the Guitar, although the buttons on mine become stuck and stop working if you don't play for a couple of months and you have to press them lots to ease them up and make them sensitive enough to actually stand a chance on harder difficulties again.
One thing's for sure though, there's just too many of them now to keep up with what's what, and the fact the Guitar Hero World Tour drumset was different to the Rock Band one seemed annoying- no way in hell I'd pay that much to change for example! For reference, I believe we now have for the current gen. consoles:
Guitar Hero 2
Guitar Hero 3
Guitar Hero Aerosmith
Guitar Hero Metallica
Guitar Hero World Tour
Rock Band
Rock Band 2
and that's all in a release space of about 2 years. One every 3 - 4 months all with DLC that sometimes overlaps but can't be used between versions (although they are rectifying that somewhat in newer versions)? Seems a bit much, but then I guess with these kind of profits, who can blame them?
I still will not agree with you, simply because you're wrong.
People are erratic, they cannot be trusted to follow a particular set of procedures. Computers will always follow procedures set for them.
To give you a simple example, think of the typical password reset. It's good practice for people to not have the same password for years on end, it's debateable how often people should reset their password, a good time period seems to be around 3 months. If you tell people they need to change their password every 3 months they wont do it. If you enforce it as a policy, they have no choice.
Another good example is locking your workstation when you leave your desk, again, people simply wont do it. If however you force a lock when the screensaver comes on then it's at least better than not at all.
To suggest policies are as important as technology is a good path to having an easily exploitable system. It has been proven time and time again that social engineering is the easiest way into a system and this is the weakness that plagues policies and processes. The very reason it is prevalent in fact is because the technological barrier is just so much harder to break in a well built system. The social side is easily the weakest point to attack and of all the greatest hacks of our time the majority fall back on the weakness of people as a security barrier.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have policies at all certainly, but I am saying that you should always work to expect them to be broken, if you assume they wont and rely on them then your network might as well just be wide open. There are a couple of policies that are essential and can indirectly boost security such as pointing out people will be sacked if data is leaked because they didn't follow procedure, but what if they forget to follow procedure as people often do? Your system hasn't received any security benefit as a result of the policy and so the leak has occured regardless of your policies.
It is somewhat true that no system can be completely secure, but policies are like your average garden fence - it'll keep people in or out if they play by the rules and don't jump over it, but it's worthless otherwise, technology is more like fort knox in comparison- a hell of a lot harder to breakthrough even if it is technically possible and hard enough that there's a good chance the attacker will get caught in the process before it's too late.
Just as a case study, when Valve had the Half-Life 2 software leaked it was because they hadn't patched Outlook. It's very likely they had a security policy to ensure patches like this were installed, but they obviously weren't followed. If however they were to use an automatic update service like WSUS then they wouldn't have had this problem.
"We believe we've built site in such a way that minimizes security risks and we've implemented numerous policies and procedures company-wide to increase security."
This is by far your biggest security threat that you should worry about before any penetration testing. The idea that implementing policies and procedures will somehow increase security. Relying on humans to adhere correctly to policies and procedures as a security measure is probably a sure fire way to end up with a security leak.
You should be working to secure your app. so you don't need these policies and procedures. This will likely end up with a system that is a little more frustrating for your users, but if security is your number 1 criteria for the application then that's the compromise.
You may think to yourself, well, anyone not following procedures risks the sack so they'll have to follow them, but this misses the fact that your CEO is as likely to ignore policies and procedures as anyone and he certainly aint going to sack himself, no, it'll be all your fault. It's also worth pointing out that even the threat of the sack isn't enough to convince some people to pay attention and realise the rules are there for a reason not to mention the fact that to be fair on users, sometimes it's just human nature to forget to do something.
"Perhaps give Darl a store to manage..."
What, and risk having him spend the next 10 years in litigation against the Burger King next door claiming they stole some meat from one of his burgers?
"First of all, the economy will be just about to turn around (the media won't tell you, but they also didn't tell you one year ago that we were in a recession)."
To be fair, from what I understand a recession is defined as two periods (quarters) of negative growth. As such you don't necessarily know you're in a recession until you could potentially already be on your way out of one. It basically means you could be in a recession for just short of 6 months before you actually know officially.
Similarly, we could already be on our way out of a recession although it's unlikely. As you say though, there's a lag in finding out either way.
Or even more amusingly, hide the keys for Bluray's DRM in the Bluray logo, although it would be more fun to not hide it and just make an ASCII Bluray logo out of the keys they tried to magic off of the net claiming the string was copyrighted or whatever when they were first released.