Here is the other side of the coin. Unless you are in a brand new position, there was someone in the position before you who managed to get the job done that you've been hired to do. They didn't have to install a bunch of their own software to do their job. The thing is that the IT department may not know everything about the computers, but what they do know is what the organization AS A WHOLE needs. The manager of the IT department understands what the resources are and what the support priorities for THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION are.
If I can't use my computer I might as well not even have it. Its just a waste of space and money if it is locked down so tight that I can't get my job done.
The way to deal with that kind of situation is to have your manager talk to the IT department and let them know that you are impacted. It has been my experience that the majority of the time they will work with you to get you tools that you really need to get the job done. As a user you have to be understanding about things like licensing and budget limitations. For example I work at a non-profit organization. Because of that we get access to a lot of software at extremely discounted rates. The flip side of that coin is that we need to be very strict with our installations. If we are caught out of compliance and lose our non-profit licensing status, we won't be able to run our network because the full cost of the licenses will bury us. What is the answer in a situation like that? Do we let you install some of your own software from home and run the risk of an audit turning it up and hosing 300 other users?
The other issue is support time. Lets say you install some software from home. Two months later the corporate update server pushes out the latest round of patches. Those patches haven't been tested with your software and some sort of dependency issue crops up that hoses either your application that you installed, or an IT installed application. The IT staff then needs to spend x number of hours sorting that issue out, and during that time there are other users who are suffering from a lack of support because IT is supporting your personal application. Is that fair to the rest of the users?
It has been my experience that IT doesn't simply say NO out of spite. They don't say NO because they don't think that you're competent. They don't say NO because they don't feel like they can trust you. The usually say NO because they already have a full plate and are running the organization with less staff than they really should have because IT is seen as a drain on the budget and management is always loathe to pour more money into the IT black hole because it doesn't directly generate profit for the organization in the same way that sales does.
In my years in IT, some (not all) of the reasons for crappy IT policies is that everyone wants freedom... until something breaks. Then, regardless of what has been said, it's the IT staff's job to fix it. After a couple of rounds of this (and shrinking budgets), pretty soon the IT staff is shutting down anything not immediately necessary for work.
I tried to make this point the last time the subject came up. I got modded down into oblivion. I hope that you fair better.
I have been t-boned by someone running a red light. It was a 19 year old kid in a brand new 4Runner who thought that he had enough momentum from going 70mph in a 50mph zone to be able to clear the light. He didn't. The intersection sure looked clear when I started to make my left through it after waiting the entire light cycle for on coming traffic. I wasn't found to be at fault, he just was driving too fast for the conditions.
I've never once said that I'm all about setting yellow lights short. My only contention is that if you're driving at or near the speed limit and you are aware of your surroundings, there is no reason you can't stop in time for a red light... with the exception of the situation like you mentioned, where it is icy and someone loses control, or its wet and rainy.
In many (most?) places, yellow means a red is following, and a red means you need to stop.
Where I come from, red means you NEED TO BE STOPPED. Not you need to start stopping. Not that you need to get through before it turns red. When the light is RED, you better be STOPPED. The yellow is your heads up that it is time to start stopping.
I can only say it so many times. You are responsible for the way you drive. You can rant all day long about evil government shortening yellow lights to generate revenue. I put you in the category of a crackhead who cries about getting busted for smoking crack. You choose what parameters you want to live your life by. If you choose that yellow doesn't mean stop, fine, so be it. Deal with the consiquences. Just don't cry about the man keeping you down and profitting off of your inability to adapt.
And speeding and/or passing slow or poorly driven cars is in many cases mandatory if you want to shave off significant amounts of travel time. For long distance from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles area, driving on I-5, it can take me either 6 hours or 4 hours. That's no f---ing joke.
I agree. See my previous comment on driving from Los Angeles to Portland. On long trips it does make a difference. I go up to Central California off of the 99 a few times every year. I definitely do close to 100mph because it is safe to do so. Doing 100 on an open stretch of road and pushing a yellow light to save a minute or two are completely different.
It is impossible as a driver to know what to expect unless you are used to that particular light (and they haven't fucked with the timings lately).
This isn't rocket science. You err on the side of caution.
You're the ass in the fast lane going 60 mph. You're the guy who waits 3 seconds at a green light. You're the moron who backs up an entire street while you wait for a wide opening to make a left turn onto a busier street. You're the idiot who thinks following the rules is more important than driving like a normal person. You're just as bad as the asshats who weave in and out of lanes trying to get a few cars ahead.
You have no idea who the fuck I am and what my driving habits are like. You're wrong on all accounts though. I'm one of the most predictable drivers on the road. I use my signals, my brakelights work fine and I keep a good sized cushion around me.
If you have a better idea, then by all means, share.
I have a better idea and it's simple and it works in this situation. When in doubt, slow down and stop. The world is an unpredictable place. Slow and steady wins the race. It doesn't require a national standardization process. You can start doing it right now. If you follow it, you will never ever again get a ticket for running a red light.
Yellow does not mean stop.
Yellow means the light will soon turn red.
Then lets get rid of yellow all together. Just go from green to red. Take out the ambiguity. This is sarcasm by the way.
If you don't have enough time to safely stop, go through.
I can't vouch for the way that you drive, but it has been my experience after fifteen years of driving that the only time I was ever not able to safely stop for a yellow was because I was doing more than 20mph over the speed limit. If you drive in a sane manner, you can stop in time. Traffic engineers are real people. They understand how normal people drive. They understand that most people will push the envelope a little bit and they factor those things in.
This isn't just about slowing down. If you know a yellow light is super short before you approach the intersection, you can slow down while it's green, and NOT get broad sided by some soccer mom on her cell phone in an SUV that's clearly too much vehicle for her.
You're right, it isn't just about slowing down. You should ever have to dramatically slow down, or dramatically speed up if you know how to drive safely. Obviously you're having some car control issues, and you have some problems going with the flow of traffic. If yellow lights cause you so many problems, you still have some things to learn about driving with the rest of us who can handle it. The fact of the matter is that you can do 5-15mph over the speed limit under most conditions and be just fine. Even at 15mph over, you should be able to stop in time for a yellow light unless you're driving a POS with bad brakes and tires, or it's raining... and if either of those is true, you shouldn't be doing 15mph over anyway.
I used to drive a car that did 75mph at the top of 3rd gear, broke 110mph in 4th and did 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. I'm well acquianted with the realities of driving at all speeds in California. The reality is this... no matter how fast you go, and how many yellow lights you beat, and how many people you pass... it's impossible to get far enough ahead of the rest of the traffic to make it worth while.
You have seen the light. I think that once you become aware of the world around you, you realize just how little high rates of speed gain you. There are numerous times when I've seen someone going fly past me a good 35mph faster than I was going, and then five miles later found myself right next to them, stuck in the exact same traffic as everyone else. Or in other situations had someone go flying past me, and then end up right behind them on the exit ramp waiting to merge onto the surface streets. In this day and age (in LA at least), there is simply so much traffic and so many lights that you can't get far enough ahead and pass enough cars to make the effort required to do so worth it.
The only time that going faster than the speed limit really pays of is on LONG road trips. If you're driving from Los Angeles, CA to Portland, OR then you really will save some time by going an extra 15-20mph faster than usual.
That's okay, so am I. At least part of the time when I'm not Insightful, Informative or any of those other things that give me overall "excellent" karma.;)
Manditory traffic school, having your license suspended, increased insurance rates, and the threat of jail time or probation are all better deturants than traffic fines.
I'm not sure where you live, but we already have all of those in California. The fines are like your warning. Each time you receive a moving violation ticket, you get points on your record. Those points accumulate and become increased insurance rates, suspended licenses and probation.
We need to standardized the timing on all yellow lights.
"It's gonna turn red soon" doesn't mean shit.
"It's gonna turn red in 5 seconds" is useful information.
There already is a standardized understanding for yellow lights. When the light turns yellow you should stop. What's your excuse for not stopping when the light turns yellow? The person behind you will honk at you? You want to make it through the intersection so that you can stop anyway two or three lights past that intersection?
The primary mentality that drivers seem to have goes something along the lines of, "I need to make my trip as efficient and speedy as possible." The reality of the situation should be along the lines of, "I need to be as safe as possible and do whatever I need to do to ensure that I don't hit anyone between point A and point B." Seriously people, what is the big fucking rush? Is the stress really worth it?
Those cameras get put in place because as a society we have become habitualy discourteous and disrespectful of other drivers. We run yellow lights. We change lanes without signals. We weave in and out of "slower" traffic and cut each other off in a mad dash to get to where we are heading to. If people drove safely there wouldn't be a need for red light cameras and automatic ticketing systems. If you don't want to get tickets for running red lights, stop doing it. I for one welcome our automated red-light, revenue generating overlords. If a driver can take the calculated risk of causing a serious accident in a major intersection that will definitely screw up the drive home for hundreds of other people, then they can take the calculated risk about whether or not they are going to pay the fine. Or they can just chill the fuck out, treat the yellow like a red and stop and then use the opportunity to take a few deep breaths while they're sitting at that red light for the next 30-45 seconds of their precious, always in a fucking hurry life.
We can't put a visible timer on them either, because that costs $$$, and some people will see it and think "1 second is PLENTY of time!".
Here in California they are putting visible timers on the lights. The crosswalk signals have count down timers. As soon as the timer hits 0, the red man stops blinking and becomes solid and the light turns yellow. Incase you skipped over the rant above, yellow means you need to stop.
I've always wondered this myself. The only theory that I've been able to come up with goes something like this.... The spammers aren't trying to sell products. Even the products that are being sold are often fakes. The real mechanism at work is capturing credit card data. Lets just pretend that for every 1,000,000 spam messages that are sent out, there is 1 that actually makes it through all of the filters and into the email box of someone who thinks, "Gee, I wish I could have lasted longer last night but I don't want to embarass myself by going to the doctor. I'll get some v14gra from China." That fool then uses his credit card with a $5,000 balance on it to purchase $14.99 worth of v14gra. The "spammer" sends out some sugar pills and then turns around and racks up $5,000 worth of profit. Or maybe they just sell the card for $50 or $100 or whatever the going rate for a $5,000 limit on a Visa card is these days.
Using the above theory it makes sense. The computing resources are very low cost (if you have to rent botnet time) or free (if you own the botnet). The emails are free to send. Even if you have to send a million of them to get a single card number, you're still getting card numbers. There was an article on here the other day that says they send what, BILLIONS of messages a day? Even if you only have one sucker out of one million, that's still 1000 cards per day that you're getting.
Crime almost always "pays better" than so-called legitimate work (is crime really considered a profession?)
Crime really is a profession. The "criminal world" is in reality just the free market at work. There are services that people want performed and there are those who perform the service. Like a lot of laws, most of the computer trespass laws are there to protect stupid/uneducated people from themselves. They are there to protect those people from "being taken advantage of" by others. Of course in this backasswards society that we live in the idea of taking responsibility for themselves never crosses their, or the legislators minds. Self reliance isn't cool. The government should solve all of the problems.... or in other words, those who have because they are capable should subsidize those who don't because they aren't.
OTHER part of the problem is the risk of getting caught is too low. It is a risk/reward model.
The real mechanism at work there comes down to how do you want to pay your taxes into the system? Do you want to pay them gradually in an orderly manner through already established mechanisms like the IRS? Or do you want to pay them in huge lump sums that might be due at any time, like you have to in the form of legal fees? In terms of the internet and computer crime, you can go for a long time before ever having to deal with the legal system. Unlike the war on drugs here in America where the cops can act fairly rapidly once they identify a drug supplier, it takes the international community a long time to come together to deal with botnet operators and spammers.
That was my very limited experience with Honeywell and two seperate power plants. All of the Honeywell software only ran on Windows. It was ugly stuff. All DCOM based and installed by grey haired guys who didn't know anything about security and only cared about passing data back and forth to the sensors and controls.
I second this. I've setup two networks for power plants in central California and the LAN network was completely isolated from the control systems for the plant. The servers themselves are completely redundant, mirrored on the hardware and software level. My initial plan was to just put the control system network in the DMZ on the firewall but I wasn't completely comfortable that the firewall itself couldn't be compromised.
Take public transit. I take the train from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles every day. It is predictable and always takes the same amount of time. I take the bus from my house to the train station in the morning and back again at the end of the day. The extra time on the train is great for reading and various other activities that I could never do while sitting in rush hour traffic. With the cost of gas these days I save ~$100 a week riding the train.
Check the connection monitor on your firewall and make sure that you don't have any outgoing connections that you didn't initiate. The common wisdom is that you can't reliably determine whether or not a machine is infected by checking the machine itself. You need a piece of hardware outside of the machine to check it out with. If you still insist on checking your machine, you can use a program like TCPView from SysInternals to check the status of the ports on your machine. Similar to firewall connection logs, that will expose suspicious activity.
I haven't come across any compromised boxes that were hiding their outgoing connections from TCPView. Are there any out there that subvert the TCP stack to shield themselves from detection with software like TCPView?
The unfortunate reality with PC infections is that once your box is compromised you need to pave and rebuild the thing. Backup your data (not the executables) and format the box. Install decent AV software next time and use a secure browser (either IE7 or Firefox) and you will be fine.
You work within your means and what you are willing to do. Others have a different set of criteria. I don't see how this implies unfairness.
You make a very good point here. I spent my childhood in "gifted" programs and took Advanced Placement classes. I spent my free time in high school hanging out at 2600 meetings with people who were highly gifted with computers. For a long time I had a complex that I wasn't as good as those around me. It took me a long time to realize it was just my ego talking, and that ego was based on the societial conditioning to always be the best because "the best" are the ones who get the "rewards", the "good" jobs, the money, all of that nonsense. I eventually came to the realization that the people who push themselves to be at the top are usually pretty miserable and burn themselves out at a frightening rate. Part of that is a justification I made to myself because I wasn't wired the same way that were. I wasn't wired in a way that allowed it come easily to me. That justification is about 25% of the reality. The other 75% is that there really are very few people who are insanely bright, intelligent, gifted, or whatever term you want to use to describe a very high IQ. The rest of us are just going to make ourselves sick trying to compete.
You'll be surprised at the resources that will be available. Instead of chasing John McPothead that just wants to get high, eat some Doritos, and watch MXC, your police force will be able to patrol your neighborhood and stop real crime like robbery, rape, and murder and will have the resources needed to effectively investigate those crimes that they don't stop.
I completely agree with you on this point, and it doesn't seem to get brought up enough in these discussions. There are already laws on the books to deal with the problems that come from drug abuse. If someone steals from me to support their habit, arrest them for theft. If they assault someone because they are high and angry, arrest them for battery.
Law enforcement is a lot like the medical profession in this country. They waste their time dealing with the symptoms of the problem because they are unable to address the root of it.
We're seriously doomed. If you really want to crack the biggest nut out there, figure out an alternative to the Federal Reserve system that keeps society going. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island to get well acquianted with the subject of the Federal Reserve. Society isn't completely screwed, but we need a serious re-adjustment of the balance of power.
Religion and politics are just levers used to convince people that they need to take certain steps and perform certain actions to get what they want. If you provide them with an alternative means to get what they want that is more simple or requires less energy on their part, they will take it the majority of the time.
I was making a joke, but I'll take the bait. Computing hardware is getting smaller and faster all the time. AT&T will approve anything that they can make a buck off of. They sell some of the cheapest, piece of shit cellphones on the market... so do T-Mobile, Verizon and the rest. OKed by the FCC... to do what? Swap data packets and operate like a radio... ya, that's really revolutionary.
If you didn't get the joke, look up "contextual reframe".
I already know one guy who would be all over this thing. He is obsessed with real time management of his organization. They GPS track all of their vehicles and assets. He'd be head over heels for the table. I know the first thing he'd ask for after getting a table. "Project what I see on the table onto the wall."
Who had the tougher task between the two groups? Apple.
Apple had the easier job. They already had a bunch of fan bois lined up to buy the phone as soon as they hit the shelves, and they introduced it into a culture obsessed with the newest, shiniest gadget. On the other hand, Microsoft now needs to convince people that they actually want this piece of crap that they created.
Slashdot Mirror
If I can't use my computer I might as well not even have it. Its just a waste of space and money if it is locked down so tight that I can't get my job done.
The way to deal with that kind of situation is to have your manager talk to the IT department and let them know that you are impacted. It has been my experience that the majority of the time they will work with you to get you tools that you really need to get the job done. As a user you have to be understanding about things like licensing and budget limitations. For example I work at a non-profit organization. Because of that we get access to a lot of software at extremely discounted rates. The flip side of that coin is that we need to be very strict with our installations. If we are caught out of compliance and lose our non-profit licensing status, we won't be able to run our network because the full cost of the licenses will bury us. What is the answer in a situation like that? Do we let you install some of your own software from home and run the risk of an audit turning it up and hosing 300 other users?
The other issue is support time. Lets say you install some software from home. Two months later the corporate update server pushes out the latest round of patches. Those patches haven't been tested with your software and some sort of dependency issue crops up that hoses either your application that you installed, or an IT installed application. The IT staff then needs to spend x number of hours sorting that issue out, and during that time there are other users who are suffering from a lack of support because IT is supporting your personal application. Is that fair to the rest of the users?
It has been my experience that IT doesn't simply say NO out of spite. They don't say NO because they don't think that you're competent. They don't say NO because they don't feel like they can trust you. The usually say NO because they already have a full plate and are running the organization with less staff than they really should have because IT is seen as a drain on the budget and management is always loathe to pour more money into the IT black hole because it doesn't directly generate profit for the organization in the same way that sales does.
I tried to make this point the last time the subject came up. I got modded down into oblivion. I hope that you fair better.
I've never once said that I'm all about setting yellow lights short. My only contention is that if you're driving at or near the speed limit and you are aware of your surroundings, there is no reason you can't stop in time for a red light... with the exception of the situation like you mentioned, where it is icy and someone loses control, or its wet and rainy.
In many (most?) places, yellow means a red is following, and a red means you need to stop.
Where I come from, red means you NEED TO BE STOPPED. Not you need to start stopping. Not that you need to get through before it turns red. When the light is RED, you better be STOPPED. The yellow is your heads up that it is time to start stopping.
I can only say it so many times. You are responsible for the way you drive. You can rant all day long about evil government shortening yellow lights to generate revenue. I put you in the category of a crackhead who cries about getting busted for smoking crack. You choose what parameters you want to live your life by. If you choose that yellow doesn't mean stop, fine, so be it. Deal with the consiquences. Just don't cry about the man keeping you down and profitting off of your inability to adapt.
I agree. See my previous comment on driving from Los Angeles to Portland. On long trips it does make a difference. I go up to Central California off of the 99 a few times every year. I definitely do close to 100mph because it is safe to do so. Doing 100 on an open stretch of road and pushing a yellow light to save a minute or two are completely different.
This isn't rocket science. You err on the side of caution.
You're the ass in the fast lane going 60 mph. You're the guy who waits 3 seconds at a green light. You're the moron who backs up an entire street while you wait for a wide opening to make a left turn onto a busier street. You're the idiot who thinks following the rules is more important than driving like a normal person. You're just as bad as the asshats who weave in and out of lanes trying to get a few cars ahead.
You have no idea who the fuck I am and what my driving habits are like. You're wrong on all accounts though. I'm one of the most predictable drivers on the road. I use my signals, my brakelights work fine and I keep a good sized cushion around me.
If you have a better idea, then by all means, share.
I have a better idea and it's simple and it works in this situation. When in doubt, slow down and stop. The world is an unpredictable place. Slow and steady wins the race. It doesn't require a national standardization process. You can start doing it right now. If you follow it, you will never ever again get a ticket for running a red light.
Yellow does not mean stop.
Yellow means the light will soon turn red.
Then lets get rid of yellow all together. Just go from green to red. Take out the ambiguity. This is sarcasm by the way.
If you don't have enough time to safely stop, go through.
I can't vouch for the way that you drive, but it has been my experience after fifteen years of driving that the only time I was ever not able to safely stop for a yellow was because I was doing more than 20mph over the speed limit. If you drive in a sane manner, you can stop in time. Traffic engineers are real people. They understand how normal people drive. They understand that most people will push the envelope a little bit and they factor those things in.
This isn't just about slowing down. If you know a yellow light is super short before you approach the intersection, you can slow down while it's green, and NOT get broad sided by some soccer mom on her cell phone in an SUV that's clearly too much vehicle for her.
You're right, it isn't just about slowing down. You should ever have to dramatically slow down, or dramatically speed up if you know how to drive safely. Obviously you're having some car control issues, and you have some problems going with the flow of traffic. If yellow lights cause you so many problems, you still have some things to learn about driving with the rest of us who can handle it. The fact of the matter is that you can do 5-15mph over the speed limit under most conditions and be just fine. Even at 15mph over, you should be able to stop in time for a yellow light unless you're driving a POS with bad brakes and tires, or it's raining... and if either of those is true, you shouldn't be doing 15mph over anyway.
I used to drive a car that did 75mph at the top of 3rd gear, broke 110mph in 4th and did 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds. I'm well acquianted with the realities of driving at all speeds in California. The reality is this... no matter how fast you go, and how many yellow lights you beat, and how many people you pass... it's impossible to get far enough ahead of the rest of the traffic to make it worth while.
Slow traffic in the left lane sucks. It seems particularly prevelent here in California.
The only time that going faster than the speed limit really pays of is on LONG road trips. If you're driving from Los Angeles, CA to Portland, OR then you really will save some time by going an extra 15-20mph faster than usual.
That's okay, so am I. At least part of the time when I'm not Insightful, Informative or any of those other things that give me overall "excellent" karma. ;)
I'm not sure where you live, but we already have all of those in California. The fines are like your warning. Each time you receive a moving violation ticket, you get points on your record. Those points accumulate and become increased insurance rates, suspended licenses and probation.
There already is a standardized understanding for yellow lights. When the light turns yellow you should stop. What's your excuse for not stopping when the light turns yellow? The person behind you will honk at you? You want to make it through the intersection so that you can stop anyway two or three lights past that intersection?
The primary mentality that drivers seem to have goes something along the lines of, "I need to make my trip as efficient and speedy as possible." The reality of the situation should be along the lines of, "I need to be as safe as possible and do whatever I need to do to ensure that I don't hit anyone between point A and point B." Seriously people, what is the big fucking rush? Is the stress really worth it?
Those cameras get put in place because as a society we have become habitualy discourteous and disrespectful of other drivers. We run yellow lights. We change lanes without signals. We weave in and out of "slower" traffic and cut each other off in a mad dash to get to where we are heading to. If people drove safely there wouldn't be a need for red light cameras and automatic ticketing systems. If you don't want to get tickets for running red lights, stop doing it. I for one welcome our automated red-light, revenue generating overlords. If a driver can take the calculated risk of causing a serious accident in a major intersection that will definitely screw up the drive home for hundreds of other people, then they can take the calculated risk about whether or not they are going to pay the fine. Or they can just chill the fuck out, treat the yellow like a red and stop and then use the opportunity to take a few deep breaths while they're sitting at that red light for the next 30-45 seconds of their precious, always in a fucking hurry life.
We can't put a visible timer on them either, because that costs $$$, and some people will see it and think "1 second is PLENTY of time!".
Here in California they are putting visible timers on the lights. The crosswalk signals have count down timers. As soon as the timer hits 0, the red man stops blinking and becomes solid and the light turns yellow. Incase you skipped over the rant above, yellow means you need to stop.
Amen brother!
Using the above theory it makes sense. The computing resources are very low cost (if you have to rent botnet time) or free (if you own the botnet). The emails are free to send. Even if you have to send a million of them to get a single card number, you're still getting card numbers. There was an article on here the other day that says they send what, BILLIONS of messages a day? Even if you only have one sucker out of one million, that's still 1000 cards per day that you're getting.
Crime really is a profession. The "criminal world" is in reality just the free market at work. There are services that people want performed and there are those who perform the service. Like a lot of laws, most of the computer trespass laws are there to protect stupid/uneducated people from themselves. They are there to protect those people from "being taken advantage of" by others. Of course in this backasswards society that we live in the idea of taking responsibility for themselves never crosses their, or the legislators minds. Self reliance isn't cool. The government should solve all of the problems.... or in other words, those who have because they are capable should subsidize those who don't because they aren't.
OTHER part of the problem is the risk of getting caught is too low. It is a risk/reward model.
The real mechanism at work there comes down to how do you want to pay your taxes into the system? Do you want to pay them gradually in an orderly manner through already established mechanisms like the IRS? Or do you want to pay them in huge lump sums that might be due at any time, like you have to in the form of legal fees? In terms of the internet and computer crime, you can go for a long time before ever having to deal with the legal system. Unlike the war on drugs here in America where the cops can act fairly rapidly once they identify a drug supplier, it takes the international community a long time to come together to deal with botnet operators and spammers.
That was my very limited experience with Honeywell and two seperate power plants. All of the Honeywell software only ran on Windows. It was ugly stuff. All DCOM based and installed by grey haired guys who didn't know anything about security and only cared about passing data back and forth to the sensors and controls.
I second this. I've setup two networks for power plants in central California and the LAN network was completely isolated from the control systems for the plant. The servers themselves are completely redundant, mirrored on the hardware and software level. My initial plan was to just put the control system network in the DMZ on the firewall but I wasn't completely comfortable that the firewall itself couldn't be compromised.
Take public transit. I take the train from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles every day. It is predictable and always takes the same amount of time. I take the bus from my house to the train station in the morning and back again at the end of the day. The extra time on the train is great for reading and various other activities that I could never do while sitting in rush hour traffic. With the cost of gas these days I save ~$100 a week riding the train.
I haven't come across any compromised boxes that were hiding their outgoing connections from TCPView. Are there any out there that subvert the TCP stack to shield themselves from detection with software like TCPView?
The unfortunate reality with PC infections is that once your box is compromised you need to pave and rebuild the thing. Backup your data (not the executables) and format the box. Install decent AV software next time and use a secure browser (either IE7 or Firefox) and you will be fine.
You make a very good point here. I spent my childhood in "gifted" programs and took Advanced Placement classes. I spent my free time in high school hanging out at 2600 meetings with people who were highly gifted with computers. For a long time I had a complex that I wasn't as good as those around me. It took me a long time to realize it was just my ego talking, and that ego was based on the societial conditioning to always be the best because "the best" are the ones who get the "rewards", the "good" jobs, the money, all of that nonsense. I eventually came to the realization that the people who push themselves to be at the top are usually pretty miserable and burn themselves out at a frightening rate. Part of that is a justification I made to myself because I wasn't wired the same way that were. I wasn't wired in a way that allowed it come easily to me. That justification is about 25% of the reality. The other 75% is that there really are very few people who are insanely bright, intelligent, gifted, or whatever term you want to use to describe a very high IQ. The rest of us are just going to make ourselves sick trying to compete.
I completely agree with you on this point, and it doesn't seem to get brought up enough in these discussions. There are already laws on the books to deal with the problems that come from drug abuse. If someone steals from me to support their habit, arrest them for theft. If they assault someone because they are high and angry, arrest them for battery.
Law enforcement is a lot like the medical profession in this country. They waste their time dealing with the symptoms of the problem because they are unable to address the root of it.
We're seriously doomed. If you really want to crack the biggest nut out there, figure out an alternative to the Federal Reserve system that keeps society going. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island to get well acquianted with the subject of the Federal Reserve. Society isn't completely screwed, but we need a serious re-adjustment of the balance of power. Religion and politics are just levers used to convince people that they need to take certain steps and perform certain actions to get what they want. If you provide them with an alternative means to get what they want that is more simple or requires less energy on their part, they will take it the majority of the time.
Yup, and that was a big load of crap when you needed more than one. It was difficult enough getting one engineer into a building.
If you didn't get the joke, look up "contextual reframe".
I already know one guy who would be all over this thing. He is obsessed with real time management of his organization. They GPS track all of their vehicles and assets. He'd be head over heels for the table. I know the first thing he'd ask for after getting a table. "Project what I see on the table onto the wall."
Apple had the easier job. They already had a bunch of fan bois lined up to buy the phone as soon as they hit the shelves, and they introduced it into a culture obsessed with the newest, shiniest gadget. On the other hand, Microsoft now needs to convince people that they actually want this piece of crap that they created.