Consultants cost more, though. Not less. And the good ones aren't willing to work for small business because the clients are ignorant, have a bad attitude, cry about the rates, and pay late. It is like HVAC repair; the only reason the boss isn't doing it "himself" (with the janitor's help) is because he'd get electrocuted. But its hard to kill yourself with a PC.
Small businesses don't need more IT consultants, they need to: 1) give their office assistants some "Information Systems" training (app support) and a $2 raise 2) move their data to some sort of NAS so that 3) they can just re-install the OS when they have a problem and 4) then problems aren't blocking and they can just learn how to fix their annoyances until 5) they can hire somebody when they need that much help
don't fall on your sword for someone guaranteed to yank it free then stick it in your back.
Wait, what? Bloody hell. Don't fall on your damn sword unless it was for the express expediency of the person yanking it free.
If you're not ready to make the sacrifice, don't virtue signal that you will. Or you'll be the one standing there with a sword in one hand a short straw in the other.
But look. There is two ways it goes. You either accept the consultant's recommendation, or you hire a different consultant. We slay legacy dragons, we don't fall on swords.
What would a "Warranty" even mean even mean for IT consulting?
It is just like in Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith compares toll roads to block grants given to the landowner. The network is the road, and the IT problems that need fixing are the weather damage. Everything else is the same; you're way better off paying as you go. If you already paid, just because the landowner is supposed to fix it doesn't stop you from having to sit by the side of the road in your carriage for a week while their minimal repair crew fixes it.
In the enterprise where they have a big IT department, that would be equivalent to a modern government requisitioning system with professional management of the work and budget. Adam Smith didn't compare that, so his (very old) analysis is useless for the case of actual road-building. But the general model is still valuable.
Don't hire a consultant to do desktop support, hire a professional services company that already staffs a quality support line.
Consultants should not be doing things other than writing code, configuring and architecting networks and systems, etc. One-time or up-front work that is expected to be maintained by different workers.
Hiring a consultant for desktop support is absurd. The sort of help you can get that way is similar but lower quality than just hiring a college student as a floating assistant. And the college student costs less.
If you tell me you want linux, I'm skeptical that I want you as a client; because you'll probably want to choose your distro, and managing all the distros is a PITA. I'd much rather a client who talks about their use case, their business needs, and how much they want to pay.
They were not fighting for the right to disobey English law in England they fought for their own right to live under their own laws.
So that is why, it matters a great deal if it happens in London, Ohio, or London, England.
The obvious fact is that you should not travel to the UK with documents, or access to documents. Post-Brexit, it is simply not a friendly place to do business for anybody but the English, Scottish, and Welsh.
And if you visit Ireland, I'd stay away from the border region.
Well, it varies based on if you're talking about some web blah with a narrow niche where they're only ever going to have one job for you to do, except for the one person who gets promoted to boss.
Like in the song "The New Media Caste System" from the soundtrack to the book NetSlaves.
Hmm... 2/3rds of the time you're not pulling your weight, or not pulling all of you weight. Some of us would prefer get closer to a 50-50 ratio.
Maybe in the third year they'd have taught you about low-pass filtering, and you'd have turned out to have been pulling your weight the whole time. Too bad for you, Mr Fiftypercent.
I've been using the same Ruby app I wrote 10 years ago to check for new messages over IMAP and launch my mail client, and I'm not getting "constantly hounded."
You're probably just confused; if you won't give them permission to send shit to your phone to pretend you have increased security, they will pester you about that; but that isn't a reduced security mode at all, it is an increased security mode if your phone is more likely to get lost or be accessed without permission than your desktop. Only family have access to my desktop, my phone goes with me when I leave the house and could get lost, and then be accessed by who-knows-who. Also, the phone is more likely to get malware.
So it seems to be a very different issue that has nothing to do with gmail, but instead exists across all the google accounts; if you follow traditional best practices, you will constantly get pestered to reduce your security by turning on "security for dummies" type features that only increase security if you would otherwise be flapping in the breeze.
The dumbest part is that since most people have an email client installed on their phones, and google pushes that app pretty hard, the thing they call "2 factor" instead reduces the entire security situation to "possession of phone." 2 clicks isn't 2 factors. Having the email app send a txt to the messaging app isn't 2 factors.
What if it turns out to have happened in London, England, not London, Ohio?
I'm pretty sure they don't have that stuff there, and that considering what we had to do to enact those rules here, you should really know that before quoting it.
But lets say you flew a B-2 and landed near in the UK near the coast. Go for a dive. Keep diving. Go all the way to the bottom of the Atlantic. Whenever you get to what you think the bottom is, you'll find that the bottom of the island already meets the bottom of the Atlantic.
What are you going to threaten next, to knock Jersey all the way to France?
You can simply look at who did what and tell if their diplomatic corps was involved or not.
And it was done by the UK Parliament. So not even a part of the government that would have the sort of foreign ties that would allow for things getting checked in advance.
States that are allies don't ask each other before sneezing, instead they work out how these things are supposed to happen in advance, and then when things happen, they get done by whichever side the place where stuff is happening is.
If it was their executive branch, it would still depend on who did what as to if anything got checked; for example, if city cops do something, you can be sure they didn't talk to foreign powers. If the executive branch of their federal government did something, that's the point where you can finally assume that either some checking happened, or more likely, prompt notification was given.
There is absolutely no reason why you would need to slow down the general VM to detect this. Unlike Spectre, which has to be actively prevented, this merely needs to be monitored and mitigated. You don't need the checks to stand in the way of access, they merely stand to the side and observe usage patterns and slow down access in certain scenarios. You wouldn't even need to reduce throughput noticeably.
Unlike spectre which is a real threat in the datacenter, this is merely a thing that is worth watching.
Basic rowhammer: Step 1: Run some code 10,000 times until it works once Step 2: Publish
The way you get sidechannel information specifically is: Step 1: Know what sidechannel information you want to get Step 2: Run some code 10,000,000 times until your buffer equals the data you wanted Step 3: Publish
The point of this is not that somebody can extract useful sidechannel data in a realworld scenario. The point is merely that if you server is randomly crashing with lots of ECC errors in the logs, and the BIOS memory test says the memory is fine, then you might already be p0wned. Or you gave a shell account to a teenager.
You science lecturer was an idiot, and your English teacher didn't teach you how the language works.
You know that both ways are used intentionally. Therefore, you know they're both correct. It isn't a mistake that you're trying to correct, and it is plain that you know it too, because you're making a plea.
Your ignorance about words doesn't suggest a lack of education, it merely suggests a low quality education held by a person with no desire to better themselves.
If I believed you, it would be the funniest thing I heard all week.
Maybe it is true, maybe there is somebody whose need for a computer is so marginal that that would be their dividing line, and who yet would still act like they had a use case that made their preference important.
It is just like on the Lenovo website; want to find the best business laptop? Just look for the thinkpad with the lowest rating! And then read the negative reviews. At least 15% are complaining that it looks like a business laptop. And then comes the keyboard; the optional backlight takes a full star off the rating, because it is either too hot, or too cold. And to those morons I say a hearty "thank you," because it reduces the price of the best models. It actually costs less to get the full keyboard with keypad than the regular keyboard without keypad, because so many people first choose the full keyboard, then complain that home row hand position is slightly offset from the center of the device.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I worked with him a few years ago; he was the only one in the office who stayed out of the way.
It's just OpenSTEP with a walled garden, surely there are alternatives.
Consultants cost more, though. Not less. And the good ones aren't willing to work for small business because the clients are ignorant, have a bad attitude, cry about the rates, and pay late. It is like HVAC repair; the only reason the boss isn't doing it "himself" (with the janitor's help) is because he'd get electrocuted. But its hard to kill yourself with a PC.
Small businesses don't need more IT consultants, they need to:
1) give their office assistants some "Information Systems" training (app support) and a $2 raise
2) move their data to some sort of NAS so that
3) they can just re-install the OS when they have a problem and
4) then problems aren't blocking and they can just learn how to fix their annoyances until
5) they can hire somebody when they need that much help
don't fall on your sword for someone guaranteed to yank it free then stick it in your back.
Wait, what? Bloody hell. Don't fall on your damn sword unless it was for the express expediency of the person yanking it free.
If you're not ready to make the sacrifice, don't virtue signal that you will. Or you'll be the one standing there with a sword in one hand a short straw in the other.
But look. There is two ways it goes. You either accept the consultant's recommendation, or you hire a different consultant. We slay legacy dragons, we don't fall on swords.
What would a "Warranty" even mean even mean for IT consulting?
It is just like in Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith compares toll roads to block grants given to the landowner. The network is the road, and the IT problems that need fixing are the weather damage. Everything else is the same; you're way better off paying as you go. If you already paid, just because the landowner is supposed to fix it doesn't stop you from having to sit by the side of the road in your carriage for a week while their minimal repair crew fixes it.
In the enterprise where they have a big IT department, that would be equivalent to a modern government requisitioning system with professional management of the work and budget. Adam Smith didn't compare that, so his (very old) analysis is useless for the case of actual road-building. But the general model is still valuable.
Don't hire a consultant to do desktop support, hire a professional services company that already staffs a quality support line.
Consultants should not be doing things other than writing code, configuring and architecting networks and systems, etc. One-time or up-front work that is expected to be maintained by different workers.
Hiring a consultant for desktop support is absurd. The sort of help you can get that way is similar but lower quality than just hiring a college student as a floating assistant. And the college student costs less.
They said good, you said senior.
They said good, you said expert pay.
NT is only a few old DLLs at this point.
But I do agree with one thing; you pay for a Windows consultant, you get a Windows consultant.
I wouldn't touch it; my code is either non-platform-locked, or an embedded system that isn't windoze.
If you tell me you want linux, I'm skeptical that I want you as a client; because you'll probably want to choose your distro, and managing all the distros is a PITA. I'd much rather a client who talks about their use case, their business needs, and how much they want to pay.
They were not fighting for the right to disobey English law in England they fought for their own right to live under their own laws.
So that is why, it matters a great deal if it happens in London, Ohio, or London, England.
The obvious fact is that you should not travel to the UK with documents, or access to documents. Post-Brexit, it is simply not a friendly place to do business for anybody but the English, Scottish, and Welsh.
And if you visit Ireland, I'd stay away from the border region.
Well, it varies based on if you're talking about some web blah with a narrow niche where they're only ever going to have one job for you to do, except for the one person who gets promoted to boss.
Like in the song "The New Media Caste System" from the soundtrack to the book NetSlaves.
But not all companies are like that.
Hmm... 2/3rds of the time you're not pulling your weight, or not pulling all of you weight. Some of us would prefer get closer to a 50-50 ratio.
Maybe in the third year they'd have taught you about low-pass filtering, and you'd have turned out to have been pulling your weight the whole time. Too bad for you, Mr Fiftypercent.
Finally, what the fucking hell is a cloud architect when it's at home, which I suspect it usually is?
A fisherman. Sometimes I even wear a floppy fishing hat while I type the client's name and project into the code generator.
I've been using the same Ruby app I wrote 10 years ago to check for new messages over IMAP and launch my mail client, and I'm not getting "constantly hounded."
You're probably just confused; if you won't give them permission to send shit to your phone to pretend you have increased security, they will pester you about that; but that isn't a reduced security mode at all, it is an increased security mode if your phone is more likely to get lost or be accessed without permission than your desktop. Only family have access to my desktop, my phone goes with me when I leave the house and could get lost, and then be accessed by who-knows-who. Also, the phone is more likely to get malware.
So it seems to be a very different issue that has nothing to do with gmail, but instead exists across all the google accounts; if you follow traditional best practices, you will constantly get pestered to reduce your security by turning on "security for dummies" type features that only increase security if you would otherwise be flapping in the breeze.
The dumbest part is that since most people have an email client installed on their phones, and google pushes that app pretty hard, the thing they call "2 factor" instead reduces the entire security situation to "possession of phone." 2 clicks isn't 2 factors. Having the email app send a txt to the messaging app isn't 2 factors.
What if it turns out to have happened in London, England, not London, Ohio?
I'm pretty sure they don't have that stuff there, and that considering what we had to do to enact those rules here, you should really know that before quoting it.
That isn't how islands work. Or heat. Or water.
But lets say you flew a B-2 and landed near in the UK near the coast. Go for a dive. Keep diving. Go all the way to the bottom of the Atlantic. Whenever you get to what you think the bottom is, you'll find that the bottom of the island already meets the bottom of the Atlantic.
What are you going to threaten next, to knock Jersey all the way to France?
That's exceptionally derpy.
You can simply look at who did what and tell if their diplomatic corps was involved or not.
And it was done by the UK Parliament. So not even a part of the government that would have the sort of foreign ties that would allow for things getting checked in advance.
States that are allies don't ask each other before sneezing, instead they work out how these things are supposed to happen in advance, and then when things happen, they get done by whichever side the place where stuff is happening is.
If it was their executive branch, it would still depend on who did what as to if anything got checked; for example, if city cops do something, you can be sure they didn't talk to foreign powers. If the executive branch of their federal government did something, that's the point where you can finally assume that either some checking happened, or more likely, prompt notification was given.
There is absolutely no reason why you would need to slow down the general VM to detect this. Unlike Spectre, which has to be actively prevented, this merely needs to be monitored and mitigated. You don't need the checks to stand in the way of access, they merely stand to the side and observe usage patterns and slow down access in certain scenarios. You wouldn't even need to reduce throughput noticeably.
Unlike spectre which is a real threat in the datacenter, this is merely a thing that is worth watching.
Basic rowhammer:
Step 1: Run some code 10,000 times until it works once
Step 2: Publish
The way you get sidechannel information specifically is:
Step 1: Know what sidechannel information you want to get
Step 2: Run some code 10,000,000 times until your buffer equals the data you wanted
Step 3: Publish
The point of this is not that somebody can extract useful sidechannel data in a realworld scenario. The point is merely that if you server is randomly crashing with lots of ECC errors in the logs, and the BIOS memory test says the memory is fine, then you might already be p0wned. Or you gave a shell account to a teenager.
No, not an "actual vulnerability," just an "actual example where the technique worked."
Not really the same thing.
Sounds like somebody fibbed, and somebody believed them.
I for one believe them that they've created cracked solid-state batteries.
If you gave them enough money, maybe they'll even think of how to make working ones!
You science lecturer was an idiot, and your English teacher didn't teach you how the language works.
You know that both ways are used intentionally. Therefore, you know they're both correct. It isn't a mistake that you're trying to correct, and it is plain that you know it too, because you're making a plea.
Your ignorance about words doesn't suggest a lack of education, it merely suggests a low quality education held by a person with no desire to better themselves.
OK, you first. Please stop thinking, it is a chemical process, and it just leaked into the environment.
Also, please stop maintaining your chemical pattern. It leaks into the environment.
That's not what that symbol means. The choices are "20,000,000" "20000000" and "20 000 000."
The thing you said is twenty point zero and then you said zero point zero right after it without a space.
If I believed you, it would be the funniest thing I heard all week.
Maybe it is true, maybe there is somebody whose need for a computer is so marginal that that would be their dividing line, and who yet would still act like they had a use case that made their preference important.
It is just like on the Lenovo website; want to find the best business laptop? Just look for the thinkpad with the lowest rating! And then read the negative reviews. At least 15% are complaining that it looks like a business laptop. And then comes the keyboard; the optional backlight takes a full star off the rating, because it is either too hot, or too cold. And to those morons I say a hearty "thank you," because it reduces the price of the best models. It actually costs less to get the full keyboard with keypad than the regular keyboard without keypad, because so many people first choose the full keyboard, then complain that home row hand position is slightly offset from the center of the device.