The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence
The only people I've seen campaigning for violence tend to be extremists - of the religious, racial or political kind. Those aren't "gun advocates", they're extremists.
Societal freedoms don't come for free. You don't get the tremendous personal empowerment and mobility provided by cars without an associated death rate. Sharp cutting tools built civilisation but continue to maim and kill.
People that value the role of firearms in society similarly accept that there are related challenges.
the lack of one is quite a good predictor of failure for most SW jobs
That's so wrong it's silly.
CS grads are, on balance, not the best programmers. Not just my view, also that of others. Some people at the very top of the profession do have CS degrees (e.g. Martin Fowler, Linus Torvalds), but others do not (e.g. Grace Hopper, Anders Hejlsberg); it's just not something you should be using in your hiring decisions.
She'll have learned how to work to deadlines, how to do research, how to assess, evaluate and understand complex information, how to be given work and negotiate on it, how to balance work against a social life and how to have fun in an adult environment.
She may even at some point have learned something about music.
I've interviewed and hired enough software developers to know how important a good CS education and background really is.
I've interviewed, hired and worked with enough great software engineers to know that computer science degrees are a fucking terrible predictor of success.
the best developers etc, are just hardwired that way and wouldn't dream of doing anything else. If you weren't interested enough in CS to do a CS degree when you had the chance, that tells me you're just in it for the money not the subject itself
The best programmers skip a CS degree because it'll teach them fuck all about programming that they didn't already know.
Where do you work, I'd like to make some money shorting their stock.
He's not defending the woman. He's challenging the stupid thinking that a degree 30 years ago is even remotely fucking relevant to the job you do now.
I don't care how good she was, go get a degree and prove it to the public.
Don't be such a fuckwit. I'm a fucking good dancer, I don't have a degree in it. I'm a bloody good photographer, I don't have a degree in it. I've helped advance global software engineering, I don't have a degree in it. I know how to cut half a billion in cost out of an organisation, I happen to have a degree in it.
Your degree shows that you could get through university. That's pretty much it.
I'd suggest waiting until their next financial announcement and admiring the trend in quarterly revenues.
The real price isn't the reparation costs, it's the reputational one. Equifax rely on other people's data and if that dries up because they're not trusted with it, the competition are eager to step in.
So what happened here. Did Mandiant show up and do a VS when Equifax hired them to do incident response? Did Mandiant's sales team sell them wrong service? Did Equifax cheap out and buy the bottom draw offering, despite it not meeting their needs against advice? Who knows!
Well, exactly. This is why I'm reluctant to make too many assumptions here.
It's very possible that Mandiant were completely shit. It's equally possible that Mandiant were pragmatic, insightful, informed and informative, and Equifax were incapable of understanding this.
They know what a well run textbook program looks like but they don't know how to manage people and which changes to try and make first.
Worse, there are no right answers. The business benefit of not having a data breach is extremely hard to give a line-item on the balance sheet but the prevention costs are very apparent in the P&L. So how and where to prioritise the resources available is a properly difficult business decision for which you'll get no thanks from anybody.
No, it sounds like Mandiant went, "You're insecure" and Equifax went, "No shit. Now tell us how to resolve that insecurity at reasonable expense. Stop sending us shitty consultants that know how to read the output of a Qualys scan."
Equifax should have been more secure, but isn't that what Mandiant were there to actually help with?
Described a potential problem, how to fix said problem. Rather then act on the information provided equifax said they knew better and asked for a "better team' that would do as they were told.
It's fucking easy to walk into a company the size of Equifax, run a vulnerability scan or three, and go, "You have unpatched vulnerabilities! You need to patch all these systems!!"
What I want from a professional security firm is a fuck of a lot more. E.g., how do I keep those systems sufficiently secure and manage those security risks without investing half a billion dollars into my IT estate, making half my product line unprofitable.
Any cunt can spot the issues, I'm not surprised Equifax were seeking actual security expertise on how to manage and deal with them.
They do take hits though, and older aircraft could survive insane amounts of damage and still land successfully.
Modern non-combat aircraft are rather flimsier - but operating with far higher stresses. Modern combat aircraft are a more interesting case; I have no idea how well a Typhoon, F22 or Su-35 would survive a few hits from shrapnel or solid shot.
The slingshot rocks can't be guided once launched. The drones can.
Nothing stopping you programming drones to autonomously home in on something that looks like an airborne military helicopter, and it doesn't take too many to force it to land.
Much cheaper than anti-air missiles and in an urban environment any helicopter under 4-500 feet is going to have to be very alert. Sure, they're easy to dodge - just vertically climb - but only if you see them.
The controls are that you enter a value into a specific RAM address. The game reads then clears that value, and moves or rotates the block based on the value.
Clunky, but somewhat easier than writing a keyboard driver.
I don't hate venture capitalists enough to waste their money subsidising my personal transport costs. I'd rather financially support the local viable businesses that will still be running long after Uber goes bankrupt.
Given the private hire companies around me offer apps for booking their cars too, Uber is entirely interchangeable with them.
Except that they don't fuck over their drivers, break the law or run at an inexplicable loss.
Uber operate what in the UK has been long established as a private hire car business. They're not a taxi, they're not offering ride-sharing, they sure as shit don't offer ride-hailing, and they do have to obey the law. Uber fail miserably on that final point, and it's nice to see TfL doing something about it.
But you know what? Who cares?! The fact that she had both degrees (a Bachelors and a Masters) in Music tells me that she just wasn't that into this Chief Security/Information Officer stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence
The only people I've seen campaigning for violence tend to be extremists - of the religious, racial or political kind. Those aren't "gun advocates", they're extremists.
Societal freedoms don't come for free. You don't get the tremendous personal empowerment and mobility provided by cars without an associated death rate. Sharp cutting tools built civilisation but continue to maim and kill.
People that value the role of firearms in society similarly accept that there are related challenges.
Gun violence is not a disease. Don't be silly.
the lack of one is quite a good predictor of failure for most SW jobs
That's so wrong it's silly.
CS grads are, on balance, not the best programmers. Not just my view, also that of others. Some people at the very top of the profession do have CS degrees (e.g. Martin Fowler, Linus Torvalds), but others do not (e.g. Grace Hopper, Anders Hejlsberg); it's just not something you should be using in your hiring decisions.
Have you even got a degree?
She'll have learned how to work to deadlines, how to do research, how to assess, evaluate and understand complex information, how to be given work and negotiate on it, how to balance work against a social life and how to have fun in an adult environment.
She may even at some point have learned something about music.
I've interviewed and hired enough software developers to know how important a good CS education and background really is.
I've interviewed, hired and worked with enough great software engineers to know that computer science degrees are a fucking terrible predictor of success.
the best developers etc, are just hardwired that way and wouldn't dream of doing anything else. If you weren't interested enough in CS to do a CS degree when you had the chance, that tells me you're just in it for the money not the subject itself
The best programmers skip a CS degree because it'll teach them fuck all about programming that they didn't already know.
Where do you work, I'd like to make some money shorting their stock.
He's not defending the woman. He's challenging the stupid thinking that a degree 30 years ago is even remotely fucking relevant to the job you do now.
I don't care how good she was, go get a degree and prove it to the public.
Don't be such a fuckwit. I'm a fucking good dancer, I don't have a degree in it. I'm a bloody good photographer, I don't have a degree in it. I've helped advance global software engineering, I don't have a degree in it. I know how to cut half a billion in cost out of an organisation, I happen to have a degree in it.
Your degree shows that you could get through university. That's pretty much it.
You are dangerously naive and have a pathetically simplistic view of information security.
I mean, even in this one situation the Equifax network wasn't hacked and Microsoft software was not involved, thus invalidating even your shit advice.
I'd suggest waiting until their next financial announcement and admiring the trend in quarterly revenues.
The real price isn't the reparation costs, it's the reputational one. Equifax rely on other people's data and if that dries up because they're not trusted with it, the competition are eager to step in.
So what happened here. Did Mandiant show up and do a VS when Equifax hired them to do incident response? Did Mandiant's sales team sell them wrong service? Did Equifax cheap out and buy the bottom draw offering, despite it not meeting their needs against advice? Who knows!
Well, exactly. This is why I'm reluctant to make too many assumptions here.
It's very possible that Mandiant were completely shit.
It's equally possible that Mandiant were pragmatic, insightful, informed and informative, and Equifax were incapable of understanding this.
They know what a well run textbook program looks like but they don't know how to manage people and which changes to try and make first.
Worse, there are no right answers. The business benefit of not having a data breach is extremely hard to give a line-item on the balance sheet but the prevention costs are very apparent in the P&L. So how and where to prioritise the resources available is a properly difficult business decision for which you'll get no thanks from anybody.
No, it sounds like Mandiant went, "You're insecure" and Equifax went, "No shit. Now tell us how to resolve that insecurity at reasonable expense. Stop sending us shitty consultants that know how to read the output of a Qualys scan."
Equifax should have been more secure, but isn't that what Mandiant were there to actually help with?
Described a potential problem, how to fix said problem. Rather then act on the information provided equifax said they knew better and asked for a "better team' that would do as they were told.
It's fucking easy to walk into a company the size of Equifax, run a vulnerability scan or three, and go, "You have unpatched vulnerabilities! You need to patch all these systems!!"
What I want from a professional security firm is a fuck of a lot more. E.g., how do I keep those systems sufficiently secure and manage those security risks without investing half a billion dollars into my IT estate, making half my product line unprofitable.
Any cunt can spot the issues, I'm not surprised Equifax were seeking actual security expertise on how to manage and deal with them.
You lack credibility when you suggest that people of a certain ethnicity either can't drive, or do so illegally.
if they're driving legally then they have a driving licence.
They own TDX Group in Nottingham, could invert that takeover..
They do take hits though, and older aircraft could survive insane amounts of damage and still land successfully.
Modern non-combat aircraft are rather flimsier - but operating with far higher stresses. Modern combat aircraft are a more interesting case; I have no idea how well a Typhoon, F22 or Su-35 would survive a few hits from shrapnel or solid shot.
Guess it's time for some online research..
you'd think they're a bit more robust for flying in military action
Helicopters have always been fragile but the risks involved are heavily outweighed by the utility they offer.
Be glad the military take on those risks on your behalf.
You're assuming drone-to-helicopter and not helicopter-to-drone.
I guess you also think bird strikes are caused by homicidal birds trying to destroy the engines of the aircraft they're targeting?
The slingshot rocks can't be guided once launched. The drones can.
Nothing stopping you programming drones to autonomously home in on something that looks like an airborne military helicopter, and it doesn't take too many to force it to land.
Much cheaper than anti-air missiles and in an urban environment any helicopter under 4-500 feet is going to have to be very alert. Sure, they're easy to dodge - just vertically climb - but only if you see them.
Depends whether they're seeking to prevent military or criminal action.
An assault on the UN would almost certainly be inherently military in nature.
The controls are that you enter a value into a specific RAM address. The game reads then clears that value, and moves or rotates the block based on the value.
Clunky, but somewhat easier than writing a keyboard driver.
Absolutely, and my local taxicab/private hire company are using these technologies.
They also obey the law, charge a sustainable price and assure their drivers are appropriately trained, behaved and rewarded.
3.5m riders being people, or journeys?
Just that it's kind of important in context - there sure as fuck were 2.4 billion different people using London buses last year.
I don't hate venture capitalists enough to waste their money subsidising my personal transport costs. I'd rather financially support the local viable businesses that will still be running long after Uber goes bankrupt.
It wont. Not in the UK, in my lifetime.
Given the private hire companies around me offer apps for booking their cars too, Uber is entirely interchangeable with them.
Except that they don't fuck over their drivers, break the law or run at an inexplicable loss.
Uber operate what in the UK has been long established as a private hire car business. They're not a taxi, they're not offering ride-sharing, they sure as shit don't offer ride-hailing, and they do have to obey the law. Uber fail miserably on that final point, and it's nice to see TfL doing something about it.
But you know what? Who cares?! The fact that she had both degrees (a Bachelors and a Masters) in Music tells me that she just wasn't that into this Chief Security/Information Officer stuff.
What utter fucking elitist idiocy.