"If it is connected to a network, it is not secure."
Are you slow, or did you forget the original premise. It isn't connected to the network, just like the Tiger Repellant Rock.
The problem is you just aren't listening. You THINK it isn't connected. You don't know! You can't know! There are known hardware backdoors in a large percent of installed systems. You just don't know. You don't know. You won't know. You didn't know. You thought you knew, which is why you had this crazy-insane idea that the a computer can be secure.
It can. If you drop it in salt water for a couple years. Or fire it on a rocket into the Sun. If it functions as a computer, you can't even know if it is under your control, much less that it ISN'T connected to something.
OTOH if you believe it IS connected to something, you can test that. But there is no way to test the negative; there is no way to know that it isn't connected, that it isn't already cracked, that it doesn't have a hardware backdoor that causes a new firmware to download based on a signal from a satellite. You can't even be sure that it won't then use the sound card to activate a back door on your neighbor's satellite TV system. You just don't know. That is the nature of computer security; you don't know.
The same is true of physical security; there is no way to be completely sure that there isn't a criminal hiding behind the woodshed, under the house, in a tree, inside the wall, etc. What you can do is to reduce the chances of it, to check and monitor the most likely places. But you still won't have perfect security.
It is funny that you think that network security basics are "convoluted logic."
If it is connected to a network, it is not secure. Period. It is at best partially secure. Thinking something can be secure is starting off with carelessness. They will attack and crack in unexpected ways, exploiting unknown holes; so however secure you think it is, it is less secure than that.
And being unplugged is not always good enough. You obviously don't know about the traditional work done in this area, but at least look at the Snowden leaks regarding government-sponsored attacks where they plug a USB device into a machine one time, and then later that machine attacks other machines... using high pitched sounds from the speaker as a network medium. Even if you think it isn't plugged into a network, it might very well be. You don't know. You can't know. What we do know is that there are back doors in much of the available hardware.
You can't use "basic logic" to understand computer security. It requires actually studying... computer security.
You must be from the right, because I actually said "liberals." I did NOT say "Democracts." Most Democrats are not liberals. There are only about 2 liberals in the Senate, and 50 or so in the House. So it is pretty clear that the liberals did vote with their warning, and the Dems didn't listen.
yeah, switching to mate or xfce is painless on Fedora. It is business and developer friendly, it doesn't push its agenda on you because it knows you have your own agenda.
yeah, to escape gnome3 I switched to mate, but the idiots there were yapping the same as the gnome team, trying to decide what to "improve" so I switched to xcfe.
Here's to hoping it doesn't change for at least 15 years!
The current situation is EXACTLY what American "liberals" were predicting would be the result, before it was passed. They passed it anyways, if it was "unintended" then they were total idiots who should listen more.
I suggest you visit the nearest emergency medical centre and have a brain scan to hopefully rule out a stroke, brain tumor, or cerebral aneurysm. This is not a joke.
a stroke might be better news than being "healthy" in this case;)
So? You wiped a drive. So what. It is still not secure. You only believe it is. It could have all sorts of problems. It could have a USB drive plugged into a header on the board. It could have firmware made in China that can be remote-controlled with an unknown signal from a satellite.
The funny part is that my position is from like, sysadmin 101. A computer is not secure. Even a computer you think is unpowered is not entirely secure; it could (this has been demonstrated in the lab) draw power from the battery and create a network connection over the air via a built-in speaker.
Doing something silly like a "drive wipe" doesn't give you security; past OR future. How do you know that drive's firmware is secure? You don't know.
So no, I didn't miss anything at all. The computer is never 100% secure, the rock is always more secure.
Notice how completely different the last weeks of cancer are from, "I had my dog put to sleep when she had a seizure, probably treatable, but she also had cancer and was 14 and had lost hear hearing about a month prior to the seizure."
Imagine if your dad had a treatable seizure, early stage cancer, and was losing his hearing. He might still have years of life left. Certainly, most people would find it really awful to make that decision for him.
Right, but you ignore the other situation, where there is no racism but all the qualified applicants are from the same demographics group.
Companies get into trouble, and then whine about having to "prove their innocence" because, as you point out, some companies really are racist. And if they have arbitrary requirements that are unrelated to the job duties that result in them rejecting otherwise qualified people from certain protected groups, then they're likely going to have it proven that they were using it as an illegal proxy to discriminate.
If on the other hand they're not racist and they try to hire inclusively, then they'll be able to demonstrate that. It may be that certain demographics are more likely to claim that they are "passionate" about their job than others. But it would be very difficult to make a discrimination claim on that basis, unless both a disproportionate otherwise-qualified number of applicants from a certain protected group were rejected, and also that they did not take any other steps to hire inclusively. For example, if a lower percentage Indian applicants meet a "loves to code" criteria, you could mitigate that by doing extra advertising on job boards or in neighborhoods with a high percent of Indian people.
Same as with a human, when they get older you can focus on hospice care to reduce pain and make sure they feel loved, or you can just kill them as soon as they have some aging pains.
There is generally not a need to give a lot of veterinary care to a pet outside of that analysis. The article suggests why; there is a lack of real and helpful medical care available for pets, even if you go to a vet.
What surprises me is how many people come up with a totally different answer to that for their pets than they do for their human relatives. So much for being part of the "family."
Right, in the comparable scenario to WWII, you could send a bunch of tanks and lose a few, but you'd be able to achieve the objective unless there was more resistance than expected. But also you'd have better intel now.
In Lebanon they were dug in, prepared for tanks in the border area, and had had years to prepare and stockpile quality munitions, and were just barely able to stop the advances.
WWII Russia was mostly low tech, and relied on numbers. But that is all they needed to stop state-of-the-art tanks, if unprotected.
A computer that has never been connected to the net has the same internet security as a tiger repellent rock.
False. A computer that you believe has never been connected might very well have been. And computers can even use the sound device as a network connection. You should probably open the case and drop the computer into salt water for a few days if you want it to be as secure as a pet rock.
Modern tanks have anti-personnel machine guns that can be operated by remote without popping the top. They still obviously need protection by infantry (armored personnel carriers, anyway) to fight a major battle, or to move through an area with lots of infantry, or infantry prepared for anti-tank actions, but they can move pretty well at speed and defend against a light patrol, especially one that isn't expecting them.
In the WWII era, a light patrol could destroy an unprotected tank just by running up to it, climbing on, covering it with oil, and lighting it on fire.
Yes, tanks still need infantry support; but less so especially for a side diversion. And for many situations, you could substitute a few attack helicopters.
A patrol can fire RPG pot shots at a tank, but they can't just run up and even board it; moving too fast. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan... most of the losses of tanks comes later, after locals get a familiarity and plant roadside bombs, or deploy teams with anti-tank munitions.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you slow, or did you forget the original premise. It isn't connected to the network, just like the Tiger Repellant Rock.
The problem is you just aren't listening. You THINK it isn't connected. You don't know! You can't know! There are known hardware backdoors in a large percent of installed systems. You just don't know. You don't know. You won't know. You didn't know. You thought you knew, which is why you had this crazy-insane idea that the a computer can be secure.
It can. If you drop it in salt water for a couple years. Or fire it on a rocket into the Sun. If it functions as a computer, you can't even know if it is under your control, much less that it ISN'T connected to something.
OTOH if you believe it IS connected to something, you can test that. But there is no way to test the negative; there is no way to know that it isn't connected, that it isn't already cracked, that it doesn't have a hardware backdoor that causes a new firmware to download based on a signal from a satellite. You can't even be sure that it won't then use the sound card to activate a back door on your neighbor's satellite TV system. You just don't know. That is the nature of computer security; you don't know.
The same is true of physical security; there is no way to be completely sure that there isn't a criminal hiding behind the woodshed, under the house, in a tree, inside the wall, etc. What you can do is to reduce the chances of it, to check and monitor the most likely places. But you still won't have perfect security.
It is funny that you think that network security basics are "convoluted logic."
If it is connected to a network, it is not secure. Period. It is at best partially secure. Thinking something can be secure is starting off with carelessness. They will attack and crack in unexpected ways, exploiting unknown holes; so however secure you think it is, it is less secure than that.
And being unplugged is not always good enough. You obviously don't know about the traditional work done in this area, but at least look at the Snowden leaks regarding government-sponsored attacks where they plug a USB device into a machine one time, and then later that machine attacks other machines... using high pitched sounds from the speaker as a network medium. Even if you think it isn't plugged into a network, it might very well be. You don't know. You can't know. What we do know is that there are back doors in much of the available hardware.
You can't use "basic logic" to understand computer security. It requires actually studying... computer security.
You must be from the right, because I actually said "liberals." I did NOT say "Democracts." Most Democrats are not liberals. There are only about 2 liberals in the Senate, and 50 or so in the House. So it is pretty clear that the liberals did vote with their warning, and the Dems didn't listen.
yeah, switching to mate or xfce is painless on Fedora. It is business and developer friendly, it doesn't push its agenda on you because it knows you have your own agenda.
yeah, to escape gnome3 I switched to mate, but the idiots there were yapping the same as the gnome team, trying to decide what to "improve" so I switched to xcfe.
Here's to hoping it doesn't change for at least 15 years!
Dude, it is 101 level stuff. Get a clue. Or at least some root.
You and the dog do have distinct mammal DNA, in fact, you share most of your DNA. Or do you think differently? ;)
Canada gave us Diana Krall and William Shatner. Just press the button.
Identifying suspects who turn out to be exonerated is the same as not having identified them in the first place.
No. It is worse, unless the process leads to eventual success.
The current situation is EXACTLY what American "liberals" were predicting would be the result, before it was passed. They passed it anyways, if it was "unintended" then they were total idiots who should listen more.
I suggest you visit the nearest emergency medical centre and have a brain scan to hopefully rule out a stroke, brain tumor, or cerebral aneurysm. This is not a joke.
a stroke might be better news than being "healthy" in this case ;)
So? You wiped a drive. So what. It is still not secure. You only believe it is. It could have all sorts of problems. It could have a USB drive plugged into a header on the board. It could have firmware made in China that can be remote-controlled with an unknown signal from a satellite.
The funny part is that my position is from like, sysadmin 101. A computer is not secure. Even a computer you think is unpowered is not entirely secure; it could (this has been demonstrated in the lab) draw power from the battery and create a network connection over the air via a built-in speaker.
Doing something silly like a "drive wipe" doesn't give you security; past OR future. How do you know that drive's firmware is secure? You don't know.
So no, I didn't miss anything at all. The computer is never 100% secure, the rock is always more secure.
Notice how completely different the last weeks of cancer are from, "I had my dog put to sleep when she had a seizure, probably treatable, but she also had cancer and was 14 and had lost hear hearing about a month prior to the seizure."
Imagine if your dad had a treatable seizure, early stage cancer, and was losing his hearing. He might still have years of life left. Certainly, most people would find it really awful to make that decision for him.
Right, but you ignore the other situation, where there is no racism but all the qualified applicants are from the same demographics group.
Companies get into trouble, and then whine about having to "prove their innocence" because, as you point out, some companies really are racist. And if they have arbitrary requirements that are unrelated to the job duties that result in them rejecting otherwise qualified people from certain protected groups, then they're likely going to have it proven that they were using it as an illegal proxy to discriminate.
If on the other hand they're not racist and they try to hire inclusively, then they'll be able to demonstrate that. It may be that certain demographics are more likely to claim that they are "passionate" about their job than others. But it would be very difficult to make a discrimination claim on that basis, unless both a disproportionate otherwise-qualified number of applicants from a certain protected group were rejected, and also that they did not take any other steps to hire inclusively. For example, if a lower percentage Indian applicants meet a "loves to code" criteria, you could mitigate that by doing extra advertising on job boards or in neighborhoods with a high percent of Indian people.
They share no genetic lineage or source with you.
So people who are adopted don't take care of grandma? Or wait, do they?
Pets completely lack senescence.
False. A complete absurdity.
I know what to do with it!
Carnival tricks!
Yep, same as for grandma.
Same as with a human, when they get older you can focus on hospice care to reduce pain and make sure they feel loved, or you can just kill them as soon as they have some aging pains.
There is generally not a need to give a lot of veterinary care to a pet outside of that analysis. The article suggests why; there is a lack of real and helpful medical care available for pets, even if you go to a vet.
What surprises me is how many people come up with a totally different answer to that for their pets than they do for their human relatives. So much for being part of the "family."
No, you're allowed to discriminate on random traits or interests, even if different numbers of people in different countries share those interests.
It is only illegal if you're using it as a proxy to discriminate against actual applicants of a protected class.
Right, in the comparable scenario to WWII, you could send a bunch of tanks and lose a few, but you'd be able to achieve the objective unless there was more resistance than expected. But also you'd have better intel now.
In Lebanon they were dug in, prepared for tanks in the border area, and had had years to prepare and stockpile quality munitions, and were just barely able to stop the advances.
WWII Russia was mostly low tech, and relied on numbers. But that is all they needed to stop state-of-the-art tanks, if unprotected.
A computer that has never been connected to the net has the same internet security as a tiger repellent rock.
False. A computer that you believe has never been connected might very well have been. And computers can even use the sound device as a network connection. You should probably open the case and drop the computer into salt water for a few days if you want it to be as secure as a pet rock.
Modern tanks have anti-personnel machine guns that can be operated by remote without popping the top. They still obviously need protection by infantry (armored personnel carriers, anyway) to fight a major battle, or to move through an area with lots of infantry, or infantry prepared for anti-tank actions, but they can move pretty well at speed and defend against a light patrol, especially one that isn't expecting them.
In the WWII era, a light patrol could destroy an unprotected tank just by running up to it, climbing on, covering it with oil, and lighting it on fire.
Yes, tanks still need infantry support; but less so especially for a side diversion. And for many situations, you could substitute a few attack helicopters.
A patrol can fire RPG pot shots at a tank, but they can't just run up and even board it; moving too fast. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan... most of the losses of tanks comes later, after locals get a familiarity and plant roadside bombs, or deploy teams with anti-tank munitions.
If you're that loose about how warm it has to get, the first photon that is absorbed it has already been warmed.
Indeed. Hearing people debating something proves that it was debated.
How many other things can be sure of just by hearing it? Very few.
That's because after Israel proved the superiority of American fighter jets in combat, enemies keep their planes grounded when facing them. :)