Hogwash. There are plenty of examples where "Security through obscurity" works just fine. Take, for example, Timothy McVeigh's execution. It took place in Indiana, but due to the large number of victims' families who wished to view the execution in Oklahoma, and who couldn't travel, the execution was broadcast via a closed-circuit satellite link to a gymnasium in Oklahoma. There was an extremely strong demand for the general public to tap into that feed. Hackers everywhere could have made an enormous name for themselves if they'd been able to intercept and decrypt that signal. But, since neither the specifics of the transmission of the signal, nor the encryption method used were ever made public, no one captured the signal, and a search for "Timothy McVeigh Execution" on Kazzaa returns 0 results. Security through obscurity worked in this example.
Here's another example. Do you have any idea about the internal layout of the Pentagon? Of course not. The floor plans are top secret. The locations of secret escape hallways are all top secret. The knowledge is "obscured." And consequently, the Pentagon has never been physically broken into. If all you naive "openness is more secure" zealots had your way, then the entire schematic of the Pentagon, Whitehouse, NORAD, and everything else would be all over the net, for us "White hats" to scrutinize and improve. Unfortunately, we'd all argue over what the "right" way to do things would be, and meanwhile, bin Laden's disciples would be delivering suicide-bomb-after-suicide-bomb to Bush's bedside.
I admit that "Security through obscurity" is not a silver bullet, and in many cases, is less desirable than open approaches. However, it is obvious that neither is your suggestion that open solutions are always best, correct. It should be clear to even the most fervent zealot that sometimes, a layer of obscurity is appropriate, and enhances the security of a situation that has already been thoroughly scrutinized by a variety of experts.
It was in Canada. In Canada, "Engineer" is a protected term, like "Doctor." I can't take a 6-month IT course and call myself a "Network Doctor," and put the title "Dr. Kevin" on my business cards. It's the same thing with "Engineer" in Canada (and "Architect", too, interestingly enough).
There is only one university in Canada that is actually allowed to graduate "Software Engineers," and it's in Newfoundland (MUN). Other universities are not allowed to call their grads "Engineers" unless they follow the strict cirriculum requirements of the main engineering authority in Canada, whose name escapes me at the moment.
This is all second-hand info, spoken as a guy who's married to a genuine, certified Engineer (Industrial).:)
in the US, even the poor people enjoy significantly higher standars of living, stability and security than other nations.
So you're saying the solution is for us to all adopt the lifestyle and quality-of-life of the homeless guy on the corner?
Noone told you to get married and breed. Those are all your choices and risks you took and now you have to provide for your family.
Great, so the purpose of life then is to slave like a dog for 60 hours a week, eat Kraft Dinner and sleep on a cot in a bachelor apartment shared with 3 other drones. All material pleasures should be foregone, since they're wasteful and unecessary.
Why exactly are we even bothering to live then? What is the point of life if you don't enjoy it? Why do you seem to feel that is acceptable for a society to consider such a joyless life "normal?"
I agree that that's the reality. However, I don't agree that the solution is to "deal with it." The solution, in my opinion, is to fix it. If you re-read my original post, I'm saying that a society in which both parents must work in order to afford basic necessities plus retirement and college savings is a problem. It's bad for the kids. Society should strive to create an environment where the average income is enough to support an average family. On just one of those "average" incomes.
Where I live, 2-bedroom semi-detached row-houses have a base price of $200,000. If you're willing to put up with a 45+ minute commute to the city, you can get a modest single detached 3-bedroom home for about the same base price. Note, of course, that the "base price" doesn't include any upgrades whatsoever.
I'm in Ottawa, Canada, by the way. Moving to a cheaper area is not really practical, because we're both in high-tech. Areas where housing is cheap don't have any R&D going on, and thus we're not employable.
My wife and I don't have kids. We both work. We can get by with both our incomes, but we're not able to save as much for retirement as we'd like. If we had kids, we'd have to find even more (non-existent) money in our budget to save for college, and one of us would have to stay home to raise our kid(s).
To all those people who say that $45k/year is enough for a family, just look at the numbers.
Salary: $45,000/year pre-tax ($32,000 take-home)
Let's say I found an incredible deal, and found a 3-bedroom home for our 4-member family, within driving distance of the city (30 minutes), for the incredible price of $150,000. With a 10% down payment, mortgaging $135,000 over 25 years at 4%, our monthly payments would be about $712. That's $8544 per year.
Mortgage: $8544
We like to eat healthy. For my wife and I, plus our 2 imaginary kids, we'd spend about $700/month on groceries. That may sound like a lot to a lot of you bachelors, but that's less than $2 per meal, per family member. $700/month is $8400 per year.
Food: $8400
Now, bills. Say we don't have cable, or internet, and never make long distance calls. We just have water-sewer ($30), natural gas ($100, for heating and hot water), electric ($150), and basic phone service ($30). That's $310/month, or $3720/year.
Utilities: $3720
My wife and I need to get to work. Since we couldn't afford to live in the downtown core, public transit doesn't come out as far as our home. So we have cars. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend they're completely paid for, and all we have to pay for is gas ($300/month) and insurance ($120/month).
Car gas and insurance: $5040
Can't forget property tax. Average property tax in my area is $4500 per year. Since we're living at the very lower limit of our means, and we're pretending we bought a s***hole of a house, our taxes are only $2500/year.
Property taxes: $2500
Since we'd like our imaginary kids to be educated someday, we're being prudent make-believe parents and setting aside $200/month for each of our kids. With 2 kids, that's $4800 per year.
Education savings: $4800
Whoops! That brings our total up to $33,004, which is already more than the $32,000 the government lets us take home. And that doesn't include any money for paying back our student loans, repairing the cars or house when things break, no saving for retirement, no medical emergencies, no vacations, no traveling, no cable TV or internet, no charitable donations, no dinners out, no entertainment budget at all.
We wouldn't even have enough to cover the bare-necessities, let alone a single luxury. A society where this is the case is broken. There's something wrong here. This is a problem. Both parents should not have to work to raise a child. Society does NOT benefit when parents choose to both stay in the workforce, and palm off the child-rearing to a stranger.
As you can see, $45,000/year is not nearly enough for even the bare essentials for a family of 4.
That's right, genius, ALL KIDS from dual-income families turn to gangs and crime.
*Sigh* Yeah, that's right, that's what I said. Thanks for paraphrasing for me.
Quit putting words in my mouth. If you look at the various demographic cross-sections of convicted criminals, you notice several suprising and disturbing things. For instance, the single biggest thing most criminals have in common is a disadvantaged economic class. Whether that's due to race, geographic influences, or family history varies, but the end result is the same. The poor are more likely to commit crime.
Likewise, when you look at the factors of juvenile criminals, you find that while there are still similar economic influences, (i.e., a disproportionate number of them come from broken or single-parent families [read: "low income"]), but you also get a surprising number who come from what could only be described as "upscale" families. Double-income families who by all accounts are quite well-off. These are the kids who have too much free time away from their parents, and turn to crime for attention, or gangs for respect.
What I'm trying to say is that if the general population of "good kids" is made up of 50% kids who have a family unit where one parent works and the other stays home to raise the kids, and 50% kids where both parents work, then the kids in juvenile detention are made up of 20% kids from the former families, and 80% from the latter.
Of course I made those numbers up, but they are in fact representative of what is happening out there.
Your average family has 2 parents and 2.5 kids right? If both parants make about $45k a year, that's $90k a year total, which believe it or not, is quite a livable income for a family of 4.
Yes, I know. Re-read my post. I already said that if both parents work, then the income is sufficient. But if both parents work, who's taking care of the kids? Daycare. I believe that this is a problem. I believe it is wrong for parents to ship their kids off to strangers to be raised while they struggle to make enough money to retire. The kids resent their parents for not being there enough while they grow up. They rebel in their teen years, and never form that strong parental bond that is essential to a stable, well-balanced development. The parents, in turn, feel guilty about not spending enough time with their kids. So they try to "buy" their affection with material goods. This teaches kids that family relationships aren't important, and that material goods can buy or substitute for affection. They hook up with other kids who were raised with the same values, who also both work, and spawn more kids, who are neglected, and the cycle continues.
This is SAD. This is BAD. This is NOT how things are supposed to be. This is why kids turn to gangs and crime for respect and attention.
Incidentally, this would be a bad thing. Low unemployment can be just as bad as high unemployment. The market requires a certain degree of job mobility in order to keep employers from exploiting workers (well, no moreso than they already are).
Also, lower unemployment rates, or a rapid fall in unemployment rates, can cause inflation, and rising interest rates, which would slow the economy and hurt the middle and lower-class's spending power.
Uh... so? If someone doesn't want to work, then what's the problem? They're not collecting EI, and they're not unhappy about being unemployed, so why should anyone care? They're doing exactly what they want to do. I don't see a problem there.
Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.
Uh, buddy? That's a problem. How can anyone expect to pay off education debt, raise a family, and retire comfortably without burdening an already-crippled social security infrastructure if we begin to accept the notion that a $45k salary after 35 years of service is "normal?"
I'm not saying they should be making 6-figures either, but I am saying that in our culture, it is impossible for a family to live comfortably on $45k/year perpetually, while trying to put 2.5 kids through college and save for retirement. It can't be done.
Now, if both parents want to work and bring in that kind of money, well then it becomes possible, but if both parents are working, who's raising the kids? A stranger. And THAT, my friends, is a huge part of what's wrong with society today. THAT is why your kids won't listen to your or respect you.
And people wonder why Americans have such litigious attitudes. What exactly would you sue over? You know, in some countries, you actually have to prove that there were some damages in order to successfully sue someone. In the US, it's just "He made a mistake, I'm suing him even though (thankfully) nothing bad happened. Reward me with millions."
Sure, the guy screwed up. Some data was exposed. Fortunately, nothing bad happened this time. Sure, fire the guy. But sue? Why? Nothing happened! No one lost any money or got hurt.
The hell it doesn't! Canada has more oil than the Middle East. The only problem is that it's buried under the permafrost, and is embedded in sand in other places. It's too expensive to drill out at the moment. But don't worry, once the US has finished sucking the Persian Gulf dry, and oil prices worldwide slowly climb to that magic number, Canada will become a world petroleum superpower.
Newsflash: WMDs have a shelf life. They don't last forever. They expire. You're talking about 20 years ago. Even if he did still have them, they'd be virtually harmless. Whether chemical, biological, or nuclear, they will all expire if they're not maintained and replenished every few months.
I think legislation should be introduced to severly curtail and limit the amounts of salary paid out to high level executives and limit the bonuses paid out to high level executives.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're proposing outlawing the American dream.
Why in the hell would anyone risk their life savings, sacrifice their family life, and pour their heart and soul into a business that is a potential goldmind if the government is just going to step in and tell him he can't do what he wants with his success?
If you take away the motivation to succeed (excessive wealth), then why would anyone bother trying? The economy would collapse spectacularly.
Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge, that's all I have to say.
The very fact that GNU/Linux naturally weeds out complete retards probably explains why there are not -- and will never be -- as many GNU/Linux exploits as there are Windows exploits.
I'm a little late responding to this thread, and I don't know if anyone will ever see this, but I wanted to respond anyway.
Basically, all I want to say is there are more Linux exploits than Windows exploits.
These worms and viruses you hear about are not Windows "exploits." They don't exploit any bug or flaw in the OS's code. It's not like MyDoom or SoBig or virtually any other variant sneak in through a hole in the WINSOCK TCP/IP stack or something (OK, CodeRed, you got me). They're almost always simply malicious executables, emailed to naive users. That's not an OS bug. That's not an "exploit." Granted, the fact that Outlook makes it so easy to instantly execute attachments certainly contributes to both the breadth and speed of the spread of these viruses, but that's neither an "exploit" of the OS, nor a flaw of the program. It's simply a bad design/usability decision that is difficult to undo without stirring up a PR hornet's nest.
Still don't believe me? Ask yourself this. How many true, honest-to-goodness Windows exploits have you ever heard about? I can only think of one (winnuke) off the top of my head. If you include IE (fair enough, as Microsoft so adamantly insisted that it is a core component of the OS), then I can think of a handful more (the masked redirect, the more recent file-extension trick), but still none that will allow an attacker to sneak into your machine and execute arbitrary code. The two bugs I mention above will simply trick a user into thinking they're on a particular website when they're not, or thinking they've downloaded a PDF when they've actually downloaded an.EXE. They still have to run the program, or the attacker is left out in the cold.
Contrast that with the genuine, honest to goodness exploits in Linux. At least every month or two, Slashdot posts a story about a new exploit found in this utility or that one, which can be used to gain root access to the machine. Root access to the machine! That's a helluvalot worse than redirecting someone to www.malicious.com when they think they're on ebay.com, don't you think?
Go ahead. Tell me I'm full of shit and that Linux is waaaaay more secure than Windows. Then go read this and eat crow.
I don't think I can recall one, single, legitimate exploit for Windows that will let me into an unsuspecting user's box and execute arbitrary code with superuser/administrator privileges. I'm sure there are a couple out there that have long been patched, but read that link I just gave you. The 15 "most recent" exploits there are barely a week old! And how many of them give you root access?
Linux has remote holes which can allow crackers into your system and do anything they want. While most (all?) of the known holes are usually quickly patched, how many have yet to be discovered? How many are introduced accidentally now and then, with every new/updated utility or kernel module?
I assert that it remote root exploits for Linux boxes are far, far more common than analogous exploits for Windows boxes.
phoning home about a foam strike once you get there, being told "Naw, our experts told us it weren't nuthin' to worry yer pretty little heads about"
Actually, the astronauts had no idea about the foam strike until the last day of the mission. It had been noticed, studied, and dismissed entirely on the ground. The administration kept the info (and the decision) from the astronauts.
Keep in mind that the shuttle designs are pushing 30 years old.
The thing that amazes me is the 1969 moon mission. Ever see the kind of equipment those guys had back then? Think about what kinds of computing power they had with them. Your car has more computing power than the Apollo mission modules.
Ask yourself this: Would you volunteer for a moon mission using the same equipment as they did in '69? From today's perspective, it'd be suicide! And yet, back then, that was the state of the art, and people did it. Amazing.
How can a hole being ripped in the wing, or any other part of the shuttle not be picked up by some sensor?
For the same reason they don't make entire planes out of the material they use to make the "Black Boxes:" weight and cost. If you put sensors all over everything, your ship suddenly weighs much, much more, thus takes more fuel to launch, thus increasing the cost considerably. Besides, it's not very often that you experience catastrophic structural failure, and when it does happen (such as in the case of Columbia), it can usually be determined by existing sensors. Such as the spar-stress sensor and wheel well temperature sensors mentioned in the article.
if you level your course, instead of going down into the atmosphere will you just gradually burn up? I'm thinking, skim the outter atmosphere,
Orbit is a very sensitive thing. They started out in a stable orbit. Once they aimed themselves a little lower, they'd have entered an elliptical orbit, were it not for the braking effect of the atmosphere. If they'd instead pulled back up or tried to level off, they'd have skimmed off the atmosphere back into space, but at a different angle than the one required to resume a stable orbit. In short, they'd be heading out into space. They'd have needed substantial fuel to get back into orbit - fuel which they did not have (since this was literally the last few minutes of the mission, and they'd burned all their fuel, save for some maneuvering fuel). The shuttle actually lands with no thrust at all. It is effectively a glider. It needs very little fuel to re-enter.
although if your travelling at 1,568 mph
If they'd only been traveling at 1,568 mph, it would have been almost survivable (at least the breakup portion). RTFA - they were traveling at 15,800 mph (I think you missed a zero there), and that was almost 10 minutes after beginning their descent.
at what point of re-entry is it too late to do any sort of constructive abort?
From everything I've read, it was "too late" the instant the foam hit that panel. They couldn't have launched another shuttle in time, and they didn't have enough fuel to make it to the ISS's orbit, nor the equipment to dock anyway. I suppose it might have been remotely possible for another nation (Russia) to launch a rescue mission, but there wasn't much hope at any point after the impact event.
It's a stupid question because all your doing is testing the ability of someone to lie on the spot. The rest of us who've heard this question a billion times will just give the stock answer we've given in every other interview.
Uhm,... with all due respect, perhaps the reason you've heard this question "billions of times" (i.e., you've been to a lot of interviews, i.e., you tend to get rejected for a lot of jobs) is because you lie, and simply regurgitate a stock answer.
Has it occurred to you to be honest?
When I first started attending career counseling, they warned me about this question, and our homework was to prepare an answer. We all compared in class, and came up with the "good" answers ("I work too hard," "I'm a perfectionist," yada yada yada), and sure enough, on my interviews, I heard the question. So I spat back the "perfectionist" line, they quietly noted my response and showed no reaction. Why should they? They'd asked the question a hundred times before, and they'd heard my answer a hundred times before.
Eventually, I got sick of it. So the next time I was asked, I answered honestly. "I can sometimes have narrow vision. That is, I'm type-A and can focus all my energies on one thing. This often yeilds stellar results for that task, but at the expense of other important things that I may have neglected. However, I'm aware that I have this tendency and am working to improve my multi-tasking abilities."
I got the job. They even commented that they admired my honesty and self-deprecating candor.
Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy.
How about plain-old "factual accuracy?"
the United States has the world's greatest military
You think? I'm morbidly curious to see the US and China duke it out. If nothing else, they outnumber you by about 3 to 1. If the US is so much stronger than China, why are they so afraid of them? When China captured the US's spyplane, by didn't the US just go in and take it back? They've bullied other nations for less, firing missiles into Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, so why did they pussyfoot around China, letting the world see them begging for their plane back? Why did the US pull some strings to give Beijing the 2008 Olympics, instead of just going in, asserting their dominance, and taking back their plane?
greatest eccononmy
This is just plain dumb, given the current state of world affairs. The US economy WAS the strongest in the world, until shortly after Dubya took the helm. Now it's in a shambles. Heck, just look at Canada. They have less unemployment and a more stable economy than the US, with a comparable GDP when compared on a per-capita basis. Granted, it wasn't always that way, but as I said, I'm looking at the state currently.
This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity.
Freedom? FREEDOM??? Uh, do any of these TLA's ring a bell? DMCA, CDA, CDA-II, PATRIOT-ACT, BATF? How about the War on Freedom^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDrugs?
You think just because you're allowed to have guns, you're "free?" Newsflash: you're not the only nation where citizens are allowed to own firearms. If you're so free, why are drugs, prostitution, nudity, and gambling all prohibited or extremely tightly controlled, compared to other freer nations?
The United states went to the moon.
So? Russia went to Mars. Long before the US. Actually, Russia was the first in space, and has many other milestones in space travel. IIRC, that's the whole reason why the US went to the moon - they were getting their asses kicked by the Russkies. First man in orbit, first probe to Mars, first space station, etc. etc. - all Russian.
Truly, a remarkable nation.
This is true, but the US is by no means the only "remarkable" nation, nor even the MOST "remarkable." It's far too young to really be that remarkable. China, Egypt, and the UK are far more interesting and remarkable, with their rich histories and fascinating pasts.
Note: I'm not US-bashing. I like the US. I agree that they are remarkable. I simply object to your assertion that anyone disagreeing with your statements is jealous or envious. The truth is, your statements were simply provably, factually incorrect.
Now, for the larger point about "movies always depict the US winning because the US has a long history of winning." This is easy to disprove. Somalia. Korea. Vietnam. Cuba (how's that embargo going? Is Castro out yet?). Russia. 9/11. Waco. Heck, even Canada defeated your armies and burned your capital to the ground.
The US's list of defeats is easily as long as their list of victories. And if you forget that, then you risk the terrible carnage that is borne out of such arrogance that can collapse entire empires.
however please do not tell me that the real story has a "very predictable" and "stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting".
I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.
Another example: Kurt Russell's new movie, "Miracle." In the final showdown for Olympic gold, between Kurt's Americans and those nasty Russians, who do you think will win? Do you even need to see the movie? What's the point? You know America wins. America always wins in its movies. There'll be flags waving all over the place, moving patriotic speeches, uplifting music, it happens every time. "Armageddon" (yay, the US saved the world), "Independance Day" (yay, the US saved the world again),... Hollywood is incapable of producing a movie in which America doesn't win. That's why "Revolutions" was so refreshing. It put a little (much-needed) doubt into my mind, with respect to what to expect from a Hollywood ending.
I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.
Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a/. story about LotR, the fanboys inevitably and predictably bash the Matrix in a total non-sequitur. It surprises me that for all the anti-mainstream rhetoric that goes on around here, such a large crowd would embrace a series with such a classic, predictable Hollywood ending (LotR), and reject a movie with a completely outside-the-box ending such as Revolutions.
Would it make you feel better if Hollywood promised to stop making movies that try to make you think, and instead churned out more word-for-word direct adapations of straighforward, single-level books?
For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.
Perhaps that's why you guys claim to hate it so much? Maybe it showed you that you don't always know what to expect from Hollywood? Perhaps you'd spent the preceding year telling all your friends, "It's simple, there are 2 levels of the Matrix, Duh! The blue Matrix, their 'Real World', is just another Matrix. You watch. In the third one, you'll see the REAL real world. It's so transparent. Hollywood sucks."
Then, of course, you were proven wrong. Am I close?
And imprisoning someone for committing a "crime" that does not physically injure anyone is just as wrong.
Oh my good sweet Lord, I have mod points and have already modded in this conversation, but I just HAVE to respond to your incredibly stupid comment.
How easiest to prove your lunacy? I suppose the simplest and most effective would be a series of counter-examples. That is, crimes that "don't physically injure anyone," and yet are clearly still deserving of some severe prison time. How's this:
Virtually every kind of theft.
Embezzlement, blackmail, securities fraud.
Stalking, threats, emotional trauma.
Flagrant negligence with dangerous equipment (reckless driving, flying planes while drunk, etc.)
you can hire a lawyer to claim the prize for you. many people do this for the lottery.
Not around here, they don't. If you read the Terms and Conditions for the lottery, they state that if you win over a certain threshold (i.e., the jackpot), then in order to claim the prize, you have to consent to being photographed and having your name released. It is impossible to claim lottery winnings anonymously. It's actually the law. Think about it. If people could claim lottery winnings anonymously, how would we ever know that the whole thing was legit at all? They reserve the right to publish your name and photo in order to prove that real people actually win the lotto.
And no, you don't have a "right" to the winnings without agreeing to their terms. By buying the ticket, you implicitely agreed to their terms. Besides, if you did sue for your winnings while fighting to remain anonymous, then as soon as you filed the suit, your info would become public anyway. There's no way around it.
Hey all, quick question. Speaking of annoying ads, a co-worker used my computer once and installed Flash 6. Consequently, now I see those flashy, annoying ads that you can't stop. I preferred the calm, big white box with the puzzle piece in it instead. How can I remove Flash from my Mozilla install? I've scoured all the directories where Mozilla is installed, and I can't find anything remotely resembling mflash6.dll or anything like that. Suggestions?
Slashdot Mirror
Security through obscurity never works
Hogwash. There are plenty of examples where "Security through obscurity" works just fine. Take, for example, Timothy McVeigh's execution. It took place in Indiana, but due to the large number of victims' families who wished to view the execution in Oklahoma, and who couldn't travel, the execution was broadcast via a closed-circuit satellite link to a gymnasium in Oklahoma. There was an extremely strong demand for the general public to tap into that feed. Hackers everywhere could have made an enormous name for themselves if they'd been able to intercept and decrypt that signal. But, since neither the specifics of the transmission of the signal, nor the encryption method used were ever made public, no one captured the signal, and a search for "Timothy McVeigh Execution" on Kazzaa returns 0 results. Security through obscurity worked in this example.
Here's another example. Do you have any idea about the internal layout of the Pentagon? Of course not. The floor plans are top secret. The locations of secret escape hallways are all top secret. The knowledge is "obscured." And consequently, the Pentagon has never been physically broken into. If all you naive "openness is more secure" zealots had your way, then the entire schematic of the Pentagon, Whitehouse, NORAD, and everything else would be all over the net, for us "White hats" to scrutinize and improve. Unfortunately, we'd all argue over what the "right" way to do things would be, and meanwhile, bin Laden's disciples would be delivering suicide-bomb-after-suicide-bomb to Bush's bedside.
I admit that "Security through obscurity" is not a silver bullet, and in many cases, is less desirable than open approaches. However, it is obvious that neither is your suggestion that open solutions are always best, correct. It should be clear to even the most fervent zealot that sometimes, a layer of obscurity is appropriate, and enhances the security of a situation that has already been thoroughly scrutinized by a variety of experts.
It was in Canada. In Canada, "Engineer" is a protected term, like "Doctor." I can't take a 6-month IT course and call myself a "Network Doctor," and put the title "Dr. Kevin" on my business cards. It's the same thing with "Engineer" in Canada (and "Architect", too, interestingly enough).
:)
There is only one university in Canada that is actually allowed to graduate "Software Engineers," and it's in Newfoundland (MUN). Other universities are not allowed to call their grads "Engineers" unless they follow the strict cirriculum requirements of the main engineering authority in Canada, whose name escapes me at the moment.
This is all second-hand info, spoken as a guy who's married to a genuine, certified Engineer (Industrial).
in the US, even the poor people enjoy significantly higher standars of living, stability and security than other nations.
So you're saying the solution is for us to all adopt the lifestyle and quality-of-life of the homeless guy on the corner?
Noone told you to get married and breed. Those are all your choices and risks you took and now you have to provide for your family.
Great, so the purpose of life then is to slave like a dog for 60 hours a week, eat Kraft Dinner and sleep on a cot in a bachelor apartment shared with 3 other drones. All material pleasures should be foregone, since they're wasteful and unecessary.
Why exactly are we even bothering to live then? What is the point of life if you don't enjoy it? Why do you seem to feel that is acceptable for a society to consider such a joyless life "normal?"
I agree that that's the reality. However, I don't agree that the solution is to "deal with it." The solution, in my opinion, is to fix it. If you re-read my original post, I'm saying that a society in which both parents must work in order to afford basic necessities plus retirement and college savings is a problem. It's bad for the kids. Society should strive to create an environment where the average income is enough to support an average family. On just one of those "average" incomes.
Where I live, 2-bedroom semi-detached row-houses have a base price of $200,000. If you're willing to put up with a 45+ minute commute to the city, you can get a modest single detached 3-bedroom home for about the same base price. Note, of course, that the "base price" doesn't include any upgrades whatsoever.
I'm in Ottawa, Canada, by the way. Moving to a cheaper area is not really practical, because we're both in high-tech. Areas where housing is cheap don't have any R&D going on, and thus we're not employable.
My wife and I don't have kids. We both work. We can get by with both our incomes, but we're not able to save as much for retirement as we'd like. If we had kids, we'd have to find even more (non-existent) money in our budget to save for college, and one of us would have to stay home to raise our kid(s).
To all those people who say that $45k/year is enough for a family, just look at the numbers.
Salary: $45,000/year pre-tax ($32,000 take-home)
Let's say I found an incredible deal, and found a 3-bedroom home for our 4-member family, within driving distance of the city (30 minutes), for the incredible price of $150,000. With a 10% down payment, mortgaging $135,000 over 25 years at 4%, our monthly payments would be about $712. That's $8544 per year.
Mortgage: $8544
We like to eat healthy. For my wife and I, plus our 2 imaginary kids, we'd spend about $700/month on groceries. That may sound like a lot to a lot of you bachelors, but that's less than $2 per meal, per family member. $700/month is $8400 per year.
Food: $8400
Now, bills. Say we don't have cable, or internet, and never make long distance calls. We just have water-sewer ($30), natural gas ($100, for heating and hot water), electric ($150), and basic phone service ($30). That's $310/month, or $3720/year.
Utilities: $3720
My wife and I need to get to work. Since we couldn't afford to live in the downtown core, public transit doesn't come out as far as our home. So we have cars. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend they're completely paid for, and all we have to pay for is gas ($300/month) and insurance ($120/month).
Car gas and insurance: $5040
Can't forget property tax. Average property tax in my area is $4500 per year. Since we're living at the very lower limit of our means, and we're pretending we bought a s***hole of a house, our taxes are only $2500/year.
Property taxes: $2500
Since we'd like our imaginary kids to be educated someday, we're being prudent make-believe parents and setting aside $200/month for each of our kids.
With 2 kids, that's $4800 per year.
Education savings: $4800
Whoops! That brings our total up to $33,004, which is already more than the $32,000 the government lets us take home. And that doesn't include any money for paying back our student loans, repairing the cars or house when things break, no saving for retirement, no medical emergencies, no vacations, no traveling, no cable TV or internet, no charitable donations, no dinners out, no entertainment budget at all.
We wouldn't even have enough to cover the bare-necessities, let alone a single luxury. A society where this is the case is broken. There's something wrong here. This is a problem. Both parents should not have to work to raise a child. Society does NOT benefit when parents choose to both stay in the workforce, and palm off the child-rearing to a stranger.
As you can see, $45,000/year is not nearly enough for even the bare essentials for a family of 4.
That's right, genius, ALL KIDS from dual-income families turn to gangs and crime.
*Sigh* Yeah, that's right, that's what I said. Thanks for paraphrasing for me.
Quit putting words in my mouth. If you look at the various demographic cross-sections of convicted criminals, you notice several suprising and disturbing things. For instance, the single biggest thing most criminals have in common is a disadvantaged economic class. Whether that's due to race, geographic influences, or family history varies, but the end result is the same. The poor are more likely to commit crime.
Likewise, when you look at the factors of juvenile criminals, you find that while there are still similar economic influences, (i.e., a disproportionate number of them come from broken or single-parent families [read: "low income"]), but you also get a surprising number who come from what could only be described as "upscale" families. Double-income families who by all accounts are quite well-off. These are the kids who have too much free time away from their parents, and turn to crime for attention, or gangs for respect.
What I'm trying to say is that if the general population of "good kids" is made up of 50% kids who have a family unit where one parent works and the other stays home to raise the kids, and 50% kids where both parents work, then the kids in juvenile detention are made up of 20% kids from the former families, and 80% from the latter.
Of course I made those numbers up, but they are in fact representative of what is happening out there.
Your average family has 2 parents and 2.5 kids right? If both parants make about $45k a year, that's $90k a year total, which believe it or not, is quite a livable income for a family of 4.
Yes, I know. Re-read my post. I already said that if both parents work, then the income is sufficient. But if both parents work, who's taking care of the kids? Daycare. I believe that this is a problem. I believe it is wrong for parents to ship their kids off to strangers to be raised while they struggle to make enough money to retire. The kids resent their parents for not being there enough while they grow up. They rebel in their teen years, and never form that strong parental bond that is essential to a stable, well-balanced development. The parents, in turn, feel guilty about not spending enough time with their kids. So they try to "buy" their affection with material goods. This teaches kids that family relationships aren't important, and that material goods can buy or substitute for affection. They hook up with other kids who were raised with the same values, who also both work, and spawn more kids, who are neglected, and the cycle continues.
This is SAD. This is BAD. This is NOT how things are supposed to be. This is why kids turn to gangs and crime for respect and attention.
The US Unemployment rate will be under 1% by 2006
Incidentally, this would be a bad thing. Low unemployment can be just as bad as high unemployment. The market requires a certain degree of job mobility in order to keep employers from exploiting workers (well, no moreso than they already are).
Also, lower unemployment rates, or a rapid fall in unemployment rates, can cause inflation, and rising interest rates, which would slow the economy and hurt the middle and lower-class's spending power.
Uh... so? If someone doesn't want to work, then what's the problem? They're not collecting EI, and they're not unhappy about being unemployed, so why should anyone care? They're doing exactly what they want to do. I don't see a problem there.
Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.
Uh, buddy? That's a problem. How can anyone expect to pay off education debt, raise a family, and retire comfortably without burdening an already-crippled social security infrastructure if we begin to accept the notion that a $45k salary after 35 years of service is "normal?"
I'm not saying they should be making 6-figures either, but I am saying that in our culture, it is impossible for a family to live comfortably on $45k/year perpetually, while trying to put 2.5 kids through college and save for retirement. It can't be done.
Now, if both parents want to work and bring in that kind of money, well then it becomes possible, but if both parents are working, who's raising the kids? A stranger. And THAT, my friends, is a huge part of what's wrong with society today. THAT is why your kids won't listen to your or respect you.
But I'm getting off-topic.
And people wonder why Americans have such litigious attitudes. What exactly would you sue over? You know, in some countries, you actually have to prove that there were some damages in order to successfully sue someone. In the US, it's just "He made a mistake, I'm suing him even though (thankfully) nothing bad happened. Reward me with millions."
Sure, the guy screwed up. Some data was exposed. Fortunately, nothing bad happened this time. Sure, fire the guy. But sue? Why? Nothing happened! No one lost any money or got hurt.
Canada has no oil
The hell it doesn't! Canada has more oil than the Middle East. The only problem is that it's buried under the permafrost, and is embedded in sand in other places. It's too expensive to drill out at the moment. But don't worry, once the US has finished sucking the Persian Gulf dry, and oil prices worldwide slowly climb to that magic number, Canada will become a world petroleum superpower.
Newsflash: WMDs have a shelf life. They don't last forever. They expire. You're talking about 20 years ago. Even if he did still have them, they'd be virtually harmless. Whether chemical, biological, or nuclear, they will all expire if they're not maintained and replenished every few months.
I think legislation should be introduced to severly curtail and limit the amounts of salary paid out to high level executives and limit the bonuses paid out to high level executives.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're proposing outlawing the American dream.
Why in the hell would anyone risk their life savings, sacrifice their family life, and pour their heart and soul into a business that is a potential goldmind if the government is just going to step in and tell him he can't do what he wants with his success?
If you take away the motivation to succeed (excessive wealth), then why would anyone bother trying? The economy would collapse spectacularly.
Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge, that's all I have to say.
The very fact that GNU/Linux naturally weeds out complete retards probably explains why there are not -- and will never be -- as many GNU/Linux exploits as there are Windows exploits.
.EXE. They still have to run the program, or the attacker is left out in the cold.
I'm a little late responding to this thread, and I don't know if anyone will ever see this, but I wanted to respond anyway.
Basically, all I want to say is there are more Linux exploits than Windows exploits.
These worms and viruses you hear about are not Windows "exploits." They don't exploit any bug or flaw in the OS's code. It's not like MyDoom or SoBig or virtually any other variant sneak in through a hole in the WINSOCK TCP/IP stack or something (OK, CodeRed, you got me). They're almost always simply malicious executables, emailed to naive users. That's not an OS bug. That's not an "exploit." Granted, the fact that Outlook makes it so easy to instantly execute attachments certainly contributes to both the breadth and speed of the spread of these viruses, but that's neither an "exploit" of the OS, nor a flaw of the program. It's simply a bad design/usability decision that is difficult to undo without stirring up a PR hornet's nest.
Still don't believe me? Ask yourself this. How many true, honest-to-goodness Windows exploits have you ever heard about? I can only think of one (winnuke) off the top of my head. If you include IE (fair enough, as Microsoft so adamantly insisted that it is a core component of the OS), then I can think of a handful more (the masked redirect, the more recent file-extension trick), but still none that will allow an attacker to sneak into your machine and execute arbitrary code. The two bugs I mention above will simply trick a user into thinking they're on a particular website when they're not, or thinking they've downloaded a PDF when they've actually downloaded an
Contrast that with the genuine, honest to goodness exploits in Linux. At least every month or two, Slashdot posts a story about a new exploit found in this utility or that one, which can be used to gain root access to the machine. Root access to the machine! That's a helluvalot worse than redirecting someone to www.malicious.com when they think they're on ebay.com, don't you think?
Go ahead. Tell me I'm full of shit and that Linux is waaaaay more secure than Windows. Then go read this and eat crow.
I don't think I can recall one, single, legitimate exploit for Windows that will let me into an unsuspecting user's box and execute arbitrary code with superuser/administrator privileges. I'm sure there are a couple out there that have long been patched, but read that link I just gave you. The 15 "most recent" exploits there are barely a week old! And how many of them give you root access?
Linux has remote holes which can allow crackers into your system and do anything they want. While most (all?) of the known holes are usually quickly patched, how many have yet to be discovered? How many are introduced accidentally now and then, with every new/updated utility or kernel module?
I assert that it remote root exploits for Linux boxes are far, far more common than analogous exploits for Windows boxes.
phoning home about a foam strike once you get there, being told "Naw, our experts told us it weren't nuthin' to worry yer pretty little heads about"
Actually, the astronauts had no idea about the foam strike until the last day of the mission. It had been noticed, studied, and dismissed entirely on the ground. The administration kept the info (and the decision) from the astronauts.
Keep in mind that the shuttle designs are pushing 30 years old.
The thing that amazes me is the 1969 moon mission. Ever see the kind of equipment those guys had back then? Think about what kinds of computing power they had with them. Your car has more computing power than the Apollo mission modules.
Ask yourself this: Would you volunteer for a moon mission using the same equipment as they did in '69? From today's perspective, it'd be suicide! And yet, back then, that was the state of the art, and people did it. Amazing.
How can a hole being ripped in the wing, or any other part of the shuttle not be picked up by some sensor?
For the same reason they don't make entire planes out of the material they use to make the "Black Boxes:" weight and cost. If you put sensors all over everything, your ship suddenly weighs much, much more, thus takes more fuel to launch, thus increasing the cost considerably. Besides, it's not very often that you experience catastrophic structural failure, and when it does happen (such as in the case of Columbia), it can usually be determined by existing sensors. Such as the spar-stress sensor and wheel well temperature sensors mentioned in the article.
if you level your course, instead of going down into the atmosphere will you just gradually burn up? I'm thinking, skim the outter atmosphere,
Orbit is a very sensitive thing. They started out in a stable orbit. Once they aimed themselves a little lower, they'd have entered an elliptical orbit, were it not for the braking effect of the atmosphere. If they'd instead pulled back up or tried to level off, they'd have skimmed off the atmosphere back into space, but at a different angle than the one required to resume a stable orbit. In short, they'd be heading out into space. They'd have needed substantial fuel to get back into orbit - fuel which they did not have (since this was literally the last few minutes of the mission, and they'd burned all their fuel, save for some maneuvering fuel). The shuttle actually lands with no thrust at all. It is effectively a glider. It needs very little fuel to re-enter.
although if your travelling at 1,568 mph
If they'd only been traveling at 1,568 mph, it would have been almost survivable (at least the breakup portion). RTFA - they were traveling at 15,800 mph (I think you missed a zero there), and that was almost 10 minutes after beginning their descent.
at what point of re-entry is it too late to do any sort of constructive abort?
From everything I've read, it was "too late" the instant the foam hit that panel. They couldn't have launched another shuttle in time, and they didn't have enough fuel to make it to the ISS's orbit, nor the equipment to dock anyway. I suppose it might have been remotely possible for another nation (Russia) to launch a rescue mission, but there wasn't much hope at any point after the impact event.
[Re: "What's your greatest weakness?"]
... with all due respect, perhaps the reason you've heard this question "billions of times" (i.e., you've been to a lot of interviews, i.e., you tend to get rejected for a lot of jobs) is because you lie, and simply regurgitate a stock answer.
It's a stupid question because all your doing is testing the ability of someone to lie on the spot. The rest of us who've heard this question a billion times will just give the stock answer we've given in every other interview.
Uhm,
Has it occurred to you to be honest?
When I first started attending career counseling, they warned me about this question, and our homework was to prepare an answer. We all compared in class, and came up with the "good" answers ("I work too hard," "I'm a perfectionist," yada yada yada), and sure enough, on my interviews, I heard the question. So I spat back the "perfectionist" line, they quietly noted my response and showed no reaction. Why should they? They'd asked the question a hundred times before, and they'd heard my answer a hundred times before.
Eventually, I got sick of it. So the next time I was asked, I answered honestly. "I can sometimes have narrow vision. That is, I'm type-A and can focus all my energies on one thing. This often yeilds stellar results for that task, but at the expense of other important things that I may have neglected. However, I'm aware that I have this tendency and am working to improve my multi-tasking abilities."
I got the job. They even commented that they admired my honesty and self-deprecating candor.
Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy.
How about plain-old "factual accuracy?"
the United States has the world's greatest military
You think? I'm morbidly curious to see the US and China duke it out. If nothing else, they outnumber you by about 3 to 1. If the US is so much stronger than China, why are they so afraid of them? When China captured the US's spyplane, by didn't the US just go in and take it back? They've bullied other nations for less, firing missiles into Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, so why did they pussyfoot around China, letting the world see them begging for their plane back? Why did the US pull some strings to give Beijing the 2008 Olympics, instead of just going in, asserting their dominance, and taking back their plane?
greatest eccononmy
This is just plain dumb, given the current state of world affairs. The US economy WAS the strongest in the world, until shortly after Dubya took the helm. Now it's in a shambles. Heck, just look at Canada. They have less unemployment and a more stable economy than the US, with a comparable GDP when compared on a per-capita basis. Granted, it wasn't always that way, but as I said, I'm looking at the state currently.
This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity.
Freedom? FREEDOM??? Uh, do any of these TLA's ring a bell? DMCA, CDA, CDA-II, PATRIOT-ACT, BATF? How about the War on Freedom^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDrugs?
You think just because you're allowed to have guns, you're "free?" Newsflash: you're not the only nation where citizens are allowed to own firearms. If you're so free, why are drugs, prostitution, nudity, and gambling all prohibited or extremely tightly controlled, compared to other freer nations?
The United states went to the moon.
So? Russia went to Mars. Long before the US. Actually, Russia was the first in space, and has many other milestones in space travel. IIRC, that's the whole reason why the US went to the moon - they were getting their asses kicked by the Russkies. First man in orbit, first probe to Mars, first space station, etc. etc. - all Russian.
Truly, a remarkable nation.
This is true, but the US is by no means the only "remarkable" nation, nor even the MOST "remarkable." It's far too young to really be that remarkable. China, Egypt, and the UK are far more interesting and remarkable, with their rich histories and fascinating pasts.
Note: I'm not US-bashing. I like the US. I agree that they are remarkable. I simply object to your assertion that anyone disagreeing with your statements is jealous or envious. The truth is, your statements were simply provably, factually incorrect.
Now, for the larger point about "movies always depict the US winning because the US has a long history of winning." This is easy to disprove. Somalia. Korea. Vietnam. Cuba (how's that embargo going? Is Castro out yet?). Russia.
9/11. Waco. Heck, even Canada defeated your armies and burned your capital to the ground.
The US's list of defeats is easily as long as their list of victories. And if you forget that, then you risk the terrible carnage that is borne out of such arrogance that can collapse entire empires.
however please do not tell me that the real story has a "very predictable" and "stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting".
... Hollywood is incapable of producing a movie in which America doesn't win. That's why "Revolutions" was so refreshing. It put a little (much-needed) doubt into my mind, with respect to what to expect from a Hollywood ending.
I'm sorry, but it did. The main plot point all along was for Frodo to destroy the ring. I never read the books, but I never doubted that he would succeed. And he did destroy the ring.
In the Matrix, the ultimate goal was to destroy the machines and return control of the planet to the humans. I never doubted they would succeed. But they didn't. That caught me off guard, and I really like it whenever a movie can do that.
Another example: Kurt Russell's new movie, "Miracle." In the final showdown for Olympic gold, between Kurt's Americans and those nasty Russians, who do you think will win? Do you even need to see the movie? What's the point? You know America wins. America always wins in its movies. There'll be flags waving all over the place, moving patriotic speeches, uplifting music, it happens every time. "Armageddon" (yay, the US saved the world), "Independance Day" (yay, the US saved the world again),
Buddy, put down the books, turn off the TV, and get out more. Seriously. There's life outside of Dungeons and Dragons, and Magic: The Gathering.
I'm very grateful to Jackson. Hats off to you, sir, you almost made es forget the desaster the Matrix was.
/. story about LotR, the fanboys inevitably and predictably bash the Matrix in a total non-sequitur. It surprises me that for all the anti-mainstream rhetoric that goes on around here, such a large crowd would embrace a series with such a classic, predictable Hollywood ending (LotR), and reject a movie with a completely outside-the-box ending such as Revolutions.
Haha, it never fails. Every time there's a
Would it make you feel better if Hollywood promised to stop making movies that try to make you think, and instead churned out more word-for-word direct adapations of straighforward, single-level books?
For the record, I loved both the Matrix trilogy (OK, Reloaded was a little thin, but only in comparison to the other 2) and the LotR trilogy. But the latter was very predictable and had the stereotypical "happy ending" that everyone was expecting, even for those of us who have never read the books or heard the story. The former, on the other hand, had an ending that nobody predicted.
Perhaps that's why you guys claim to hate it so much? Maybe it showed you that you don't always know what to expect from Hollywood? Perhaps you'd spent the preceding year telling all your friends, "It's simple, there are 2 levels of the Matrix, Duh! The blue Matrix, their 'Real World', is just another Matrix. You watch. In the third one, you'll see the REAL real world. It's so transparent. Hollywood sucks."
Then, of course, you were proven wrong. Am I close?
Oh my good sweet Lord, I have mod points and have already modded in this conversation, but I just HAVE to respond to your incredibly stupid comment.
How easiest to prove your lunacy? I suppose the simplest and most effective would be a series of counter-examples. That is, crimes that "don't physically injure anyone," and yet are clearly still deserving of some severe prison time. How's this:
I'm sure there are tons more.
you can hire a lawyer to claim the prize for you. many people do this for the lottery.
Not around here, they don't. If you read the Terms and Conditions for the lottery, they state that if you win over a certain threshold (i.e., the jackpot), then in order to claim the prize, you have to consent to being photographed and having your name released. It is impossible to claim lottery winnings anonymously. It's actually the law. Think about it. If people could claim lottery winnings anonymously, how would we ever know that the whole thing was legit at all? They reserve the right to publish your name and photo in order to prove that real people actually win the lotto.
And no, you don't have a "right" to the winnings without agreeing to their terms. By buying the ticket, you implicitely agreed to their terms. Besides, if you did sue for your winnings while fighting to remain anonymous, then as soon as you filed the suit, your info would become public anyway. There's no way around it.
Note that this is in Canada.
Hey all, quick question. Speaking of annoying ads, a co-worker used my computer once and installed Flash 6. Consequently, now I see those flashy, annoying ads that you can't stop. I preferred the calm, big white box with the puzzle piece in it instead. How can I remove Flash from my Mozilla install? I've scoured all the directories where Mozilla is installed, and I can't find anything remotely resembling mflash6.dll or anything like that. Suggestions?