So maybe I just didn't write my post clearly enough. What I'm saying is it IS risky that the backup box is internet connected.
You took a bit of a schizo viewpoint in your post where you basically make the case for not needed the offline stuff or at the very least not needed to worry about segregating your backup server due to a "reasonable expectation of reliability" then you say go ahead and have backups just in case.
My point (poorly made) was that there isn't a single acceptable level of risk mitigation. Can you make one server connected to the internet more secure than another? Yes. Is it safter to have your backup server inaccessible from your primary servers when not actually backing up? Yes. Do offline backups offer a better recoverability factor that would have helped this particular case out? Yes. I apologize if I didn't make it clearly but my point is that if your data is important (and some is and some isn't) it is negligent not to use all methods of defense up to the point the defense becomes more costly than the value of the data and I felt like your instructions on what to do to secure a backup server oversimplified the concept and said your approach should be good enough for anyone.
The problem isn't that they offered the things they did it's how they presented it. Even if a woman wants a pink laptop that's not the only feature she's interested in and she sure doesn't want to be seen as wanting a laptop because it's pink. You have to sell the concept of custom color laptops and let some of the colors be "girly" colors.
Stereotypes sometimes exist because of real preferences but nobody wants to be a stereotype so you have to disguise your intent a bit. Heck all of advertising is based on the concept. We all want to see the good stuff we can buy but we don't want to think we got manipulated into buying it.
As with most things in life subtlety is key and like most people in life Dell's marketers appear to be a bit short on it.
You're missing the point. Security is not about one solution being "good enough" it's about a set of procedures, software, solutions, configurations, etc. that forms rings of defense. Not having disconnected, offline, offsite backups is negligent because it does away with one of those rings and centralizes all your assets making them easier to attack. That's not to say you shouldn't have online scripted backup servers but it's a well known problem when you centralize all your assets as it makes for a target that is easy to destroy hence that isn't a complete backup solution..
Is anyone considering an ADA Lawsuit. Surely those with disabilities that make reading difficult could win this one on the principle that it's not an audio book but similar to an auto reader for the blind.
I assume when you say "gamblers" you are specifically referring to professional gamblers who are good at what they do...not your average Las Vegas tourist. =)
Trademarks serve an important purpose. They're the social equivalent of a encryption certificate, helping the consumer to associate a product with a known entity. Trademarks themselves are not dangerous or counter to open source in any way and writing them up as such is really just attention whoring by the author. What is damaging is the misuse of trademarks. Examples of misuse include when one tries to stop others from releasing products that claim compatibility with your trademarked good or that mention your trademarked good as a lesser competitor etc. This type of abuse should be forbidden by trademark law and penalties should include loss of the trademark for repeated offenses. Then maybe companies will use trademarks for what they are intended. That said much as RMS does us harm by ignoring rational discussion and turning every issue into a religious extremist philosophical debate with black and white lines where only he is right, this type of writing does us harm by taking a position that is silly and extremist.
If you want to be even more evil, tweak it so you're feeding obese people from overpopulated countries to starving people to get rid of three major problems with one stone!
Except that eating people with obscenely high fat content can NOT be healthy...
Then we won't run into overpopulation anytime soon since life expectancy will plummet. Tell me again what's wrong with his plan.
I suspect the problem you point to is a standards issue. The precision is there but too many non standard versions of legalese have been released for use so the data mapping problem has become a massive undertaking.
Also, based on the length of your explanation I suspect you may be a plant from the enemy...you're not welcome here you damn dirty and souless lawyer.;P
I suspect it was an older more succinct version known as "Pro-bono Legalese". The newer version, "Legalese, Corporate Whore Edition" is much more verbose in its syntax.
I'll translate this into terms that Slashdot can understand. It's a bit like XML vs binary. When you store something in a lawyer-readable format it's always more inefficient than the plain content humans use.;P
Why is this debasement? Playing against a machine even in unfair settings is still a challenge. The goal isn't to pick only fights you can win but to test yourself and do something new and experience something new.
As for it being "unfair" it wasn't touted as fair it was a computer v grandmaster experiment not a ranking test.
The only shady part in my opinion is the refusal for a rematch. If the man is willing to play on uneven ground and give his time (even if paid) to your stunt then you should have the courtesy to let him challenge/redeem himself.
This is nothing new just the same old generation gap that always rears its head when the old and young work together. You just pick the good ones manage their expectations and instill company principles. BTW, principles have to actually be principles not just random sets of rules but hings more basic like "we use financial business cases to make decisions" or "we don't do anything that negatively affects the public perception of the company" or whatever your particular ruling guidelines are.
In the meantime, try your best not to be the old fart who is determined that it must be done the way it was when you came up. It's about striking a balance and the companies that do that well will have a well integrated workforce that benefits from experience and new thinking all at the same time. Those that don't will become either young, chaotic, and spend themselves into bankruptcy or old and stodgy and unable to adapt until they too die.
I really don't understand our fascination with "statistical equality". This weird striving toward normal distributions and matching societal demographics to racial/gender/religious/sexual population ratios is nuts. It's fine to use these measures as a tool to detect progress or impact of our policies but equality of numbers shouldn't be the goal.
What we need to strive for is equality of choice. It isn't a problem if people simply choose to not follow a path. What is a problem is when people aren't able to follow a path due to an artificial barrier to entry. Equality isn't about balancing an equation and until we learn that we won't be able to address the real inequalities in our society.
Fascism is certainly the result and it grows ever more likely as the number of corporations approaches one. We're not there yet but anytime a small group governs a large populous without a guiding rule of law and framework of ideals oppression of one form or another soon follows be it fascism, communism, apartheid, or some other -ism. More often than not it is cloaked in the "good of the many" or "for security and safety" argument. This is why collectivism and the surrendering of individual rights in any form is dangerous in the end.
He angered the Corpocracy. You can't do that here. DUI sure, we'll slap you on the wrist that can only kill individuals but non-violent drug offense, or IP theft woah...that can harm profits and profits are more important than people in the Peoples Corpocracy of America.
I'm a libertarian at heart and pretty pro-business (small at least) on the whole but the government is not here to prop up dying business models and the fact that a country founded on liberty, individualism, self-reliance, and opportunity has become a corrupt system for protecting special interests be they either unions, or political agendas or in this case the corporations saddens me greatly.
Should this guy be fined? Absolutely, he stole something that was not his and gave it to others but our government has become as corrupt as any other in the world they're just smart enough to hide their corruption behind a civilized veneer and not fill mass graves with genocide victims so that the special interests of politicians and corporate entities can roll on.
The saddest thing of all to me is that there is no one to stand against this and both parties are part of the ever moving profit and power machine. They serve various individual special agendas rather than a core belief system or philosophy that they measure issues and ideas against. We are a nation without leaders and a people without direction and though probably inevitable it is a sad state for a place founded on the ideals of freedom, individualism and opportunity to have come to this.
Ok, self righteous rant over..cue the patriotic music.
Police are there to enforce the law. Not interpret it.
Yeah but you have to interpret the law to enforce it. Without understanding there is not enforcement. The courts are there to verify the cops interpretation or discount it.
They more or less have
Blade must be less than 3"
Blade can not lock
If your profession or hobby requires a knife (chef or fisherman for example) you may only travel from home to work/hobby with your knife. Stop offs are illegal.
Not sure how much more banning you can do unless 3" dangerous-to-self because of the missing safety feature of a locking blade knives are the most commonly used in these attacks, and if so how many are there? It's hard to kill a man with 3" of non-locking steel assuming he's conscious and fighting back.
A fairer comparison would be the iPhone's market share for smartphones. Not all phones play in this space. Your point could still hold, I have no idea what these numbers are but to equate the market for mobile talking with the market for all mobile computing because the iPhone is also a phone is a bit over simplistic.
Really your defense for Socialism is "better than Bush"? Wow, I need to be king then because I'm freaking awesome compared to Bush. I hate the economic stuff going on and yes it is a creeping form of Socialism and yes I think that's bad for us unless we want to be a middle of the pack also ran country like the rest of the socialist countries in the west. I also hated the intrusive creeping government surveillance and oppression under Bush and think it was bad unless we want to be a totalitarian moralist police state. Why can't I hate both parties when they do something wackadoo?
Slashdot Mirror
So maybe I just didn't write my post clearly enough. What I'm saying is it IS risky that the backup box is internet connected.
You took a bit of a schizo viewpoint in your post where you basically make the case for not needed the offline stuff or at the very least not needed to worry about segregating your backup server due to a "reasonable expectation of reliability" then you say go ahead and have backups just in case.
My point (poorly made) was that there isn't a single acceptable level of risk mitigation. Can you make one server connected to the internet more secure than another? Yes. Is it safter to have your backup server inaccessible from your primary servers when not actually backing up? Yes. Do offline backups offer a better recoverability factor that would have helped this particular case out? Yes. I apologize if I didn't make it clearly but my point is that if your data is important (and some is and some isn't) it is negligent not to use all methods of defense up to the point the defense becomes more costly than the value of the data and I felt like your instructions on what to do to secure a backup server oversimplified the concept and said your approach should be good enough for anyone.
The problem isn't that they offered the things they did it's how they presented it. Even if a woman wants a pink laptop that's not the only feature she's interested in and she sure doesn't want to be seen as wanting a laptop because it's pink. You have to sell the concept of custom color laptops and let some of the colors be "girly" colors.
Stereotypes sometimes exist because of real preferences but nobody wants to be a stereotype so you have to disguise your intent a bit. Heck all of advertising is based on the concept. We all want to see the good stuff we can buy but we don't want to think we got manipulated into buying it.
As with most things in life subtlety is key and like most people in life Dell's marketers appear to be a bit short on it.
You're missing the point. Security is not about one solution being "good enough" it's about a set of procedures, software, solutions, configurations, etc. that forms rings of defense. Not having disconnected, offline, offsite backups is negligent because it does away with one of those rings and centralizes all your assets making them easier to attack. That's not to say you shouldn't have online scripted backup servers but it's a well known problem when you centralize all your assets as it makes for a target that is easy to destroy hence that isn't a complete backup solution..
Is anyone considering an ADA Lawsuit. Surely those with disabilities that make reading difficult could win this one on the principle that it's not an audio book but similar to an auto reader for the blind.
Veridian Dynamics, Forcing you to do what's right... ...for us.
I assume when you say "gamblers" you are specifically referring to professional gamblers who are good at what they do...not your average Las Vegas tourist. =)
Trademarks serve an important purpose. They're the social equivalent of a encryption certificate, helping the consumer to associate a product with a known entity. Trademarks themselves are not dangerous or counter to open source in any way and writing them up as such is really just attention whoring by the author. What is damaging is the misuse of trademarks. Examples of misuse include when one tries to stop others from releasing products that claim compatibility with your trademarked good or that mention your trademarked good as a lesser competitor etc. This type of abuse should be forbidden by trademark law and penalties should include loss of the trademark for repeated offenses. Then maybe companies will use trademarks for what they are intended. That said much as RMS does us harm by ignoring rational discussion and turning every issue into a religious extremist philosophical debate with black and white lines where only he is right, this type of writing does us harm by taking a position that is silly and extremist.
If you want to be even more evil, tweak it so you're feeding obese people from overpopulated countries to starving people to get rid of three major problems with one stone!
Except that eating people with obscenely high fat content can NOT be healthy...
Then we won't run into overpopulation anytime soon since life expectancy will plummet. Tell me again what's wrong with his plan.
Yes... Dead Guy #1 Dead Guy #2 etc.
I suspect the problem you point to is a standards issue. The precision is there but too many non standard versions of legalese have been released for use so the data mapping problem has become a massive undertaking.
;P
Also, based on the length of your explanation I suspect you may be a plant from the enemy...you're not welcome here you damn dirty and souless lawyer.
I suspect it was an older more succinct version known as "Pro-bono Legalese". The newer version, "Legalese, Corporate Whore Edition" is much more verbose in its syntax.
I'll translate this into terms that Slashdot can understand. It's a bit like XML vs binary. When you store something in a lawyer-readable format it's always more inefficient than the plain content humans use. ;P
Why is this debasement? Playing against a machine even in unfair settings is still a challenge. The goal isn't to pick only fights you can win but to test yourself and do something new and experience something new.
As for it being "unfair" it wasn't touted as fair it was a computer v grandmaster experiment not a ranking test.
The only shady part in my opinion is the refusal for a rematch. If the man is willing to play on uneven ground and give his time (even if paid) to your stunt then you should have the courtesy to let him challenge/redeem himself.
I look forward to meeting our newly evolved laser resistant mosquito overlords.
This is nothing new just the same old generation gap that always rears its head when the old and young work together. You just pick the good ones manage their expectations and instill company principles. BTW, principles have to actually be principles not just random sets of rules but hings more basic like "we use financial business cases to make decisions" or "we don't do anything that negatively affects the public perception of the company" or whatever your particular ruling guidelines are.
In the meantime, try your best not to be the old fart who is determined that it must be done the way it was when you came up. It's about striking a balance and the companies that do that well will have a well integrated workforce that benefits from experience and new thinking all at the same time. Those that don't will become either young, chaotic, and spend themselves into bankruptcy or old and stodgy and unable to adapt until they too die.
I really don't understand our fascination with "statistical equality". This weird striving toward normal distributions and matching societal demographics to racial/gender/religious/sexual population ratios is nuts. It's fine to use these measures as a tool to detect progress or impact of our policies but equality of numbers shouldn't be the goal.
What we need to strive for is equality of choice. It isn't a problem if people simply choose to not follow a path. What is a problem is when people aren't able to follow a path due to an artificial barrier to entry. Equality isn't about balancing an equation and until we learn that we won't be able to address the real inequalities in our society.
Fascism is certainly the result and it grows ever more likely as the number of corporations approaches one. We're not there yet but anytime a small group governs a large populous without a guiding rule of law and framework of ideals oppression of one form or another soon follows be it fascism, communism, apartheid, or some other -ism. More often than not it is cloaked in the "good of the many" or "for security and safety" argument. This is why collectivism and the surrendering of individual rights in any form is dangerous in the end.
He angered the Corpocracy. You can't do that here. DUI sure, we'll slap you on the wrist that can only kill individuals but non-violent drug offense, or IP theft woah...that can harm profits and profits are more important than people in the Peoples Corpocracy of America.
I'm a libertarian at heart and pretty pro-business (small at least) on the whole but the government is not here to prop up dying business models and the fact that a country founded on liberty, individualism, self-reliance, and opportunity has become a corrupt system for protecting special interests be they either unions, or political agendas or in this case the corporations saddens me greatly.
Should this guy be fined? Absolutely, he stole something that was not his and gave it to others but our government has become as corrupt as any other in the world they're just smart enough to hide their corruption behind a civilized veneer and not fill mass graves with genocide victims so that the special interests of politicians and corporate entities can roll on.
The saddest thing of all to me is that there is no one to stand against this and both parties are part of the ever moving profit and power machine. They serve various individual special agendas rather than a core belief system or philosophy that they measure issues and ideas against. We are a nation without leaders and a people without direction and though probably inevitable it is a sad state for a place founded on the ideals of freedom, individualism and opportunity to have come to this.
Ok, self righteous rant over..cue the patriotic music.
Police are there to enforce the law. Not interpret it.
Yeah but you have to interpret the law to enforce it. Without understanding there is not enforcement. The courts are there to verify the cops interpretation or discount it.
And calcium and vegetables, I KNOW they facilitate arm growth.
They more or less have
Blade must be less than 3"
Blade can not lock
If your profession or hobby requires a knife (chef or fisherman for example) you may only travel from home to work/hobby with your knife. Stop offs are illegal.
Not sure how much more banning you can do unless 3" dangerous-to-self because of the missing safety feature of a locking blade knives are the most commonly used in these attacks, and if so how many are there? It's hard to kill a man with 3" of non-locking steel assuming he's conscious and fighting back.
maybe of my credit card data...the fire and hammer should still sell just fine...there is a timeless market for such things. ;p
If you're really paranoid, use /dev/urandom and make several passes.
No that's if you're moderately paranoid....if you're really paranoid use a sledge hammer and fire. =)
A fairer comparison would be the iPhone's market share for smartphones. Not all phones play in this space. Your point could still hold, I have no idea what these numbers are but to equate the market for mobile talking with the market for all mobile computing because the iPhone is also a phone is a bit over simplistic.
Really your defense for Socialism is "better than Bush"? Wow, I need to be king then because I'm freaking awesome compared to Bush. I hate the economic stuff going on and yes it is a creeping form of Socialism and yes I think that's bad for us unless we want to be a middle of the pack also ran country like the rest of the socialist countries in the west. I also hated the intrusive creeping government surveillance and oppression under Bush and think it was bad unless we want to be a totalitarian moralist police state. Why can't I hate both parties when they do something wackadoo?