I don't care if they're following orders, they're still entirely responsible for the part of it that they do with their own hands.
And companies that don't track push-back at the register are not well-optimized. Companies that are trying hard to make money, that does get recorded. No, they're not going to record your specific philosophical complaint, but they might very well write down that you were unhappy with the checkout process. And when they look at their checkout process, they might indeed find out that the long receipts are good or bad.
Push-back has a lot more potential to create change than writing a letter would. That cashiers often lack training in this reduces the ability of the company to respond, and it also creates needless emotional baggage for the cashier, but that's not the customer's job.
I have a 10 year old computer that used to lag running OO, but the past few years it runs libreoffice without any problems.
The thing Sun wrote was bloated and slow. OO added a lot of features. LO is basically "finished" IMO.
One of the great things about IBM, when their old software sucks, they deprecate it. There was a time they were even bribing their professional services clients to switch from AIX to Linux, because AIX didn't have any use case other than "change is hard." Not very much of the software I use is from IBM, but when it is I welcome it. They don't always have my interests in mind, but that's OK because they're honest about their technology in a way that few companies are. I'm not going to use DB2, but they don't try to force me; their stuff integrates fine with PostgreSQL! $lt;3 But yeah, let Lotus Symphony die. There are still people who love Lotus Notes, which is fine for them, but who loves Lotus Symphony? It was like Geocities website builder but for creating proprietary apps. That works better for having semi-technical people write custom report apps than for real software that would get distributed.
Sorry Oracle but you are almost as bad for open source projects as M$.
Look, Oracle is out to make money, no more, no less. If FOSS helps, they will support it, if FOSS isn't helping them make money, they are going to ignore it.
History shows that when they buy a company making money off of FOSS, they change all the policies to be anti-FOSS and happily stop making that money.
Oracle cares where their money comes from. If it doesn't come from doing Evil, they don't want it to tarnish them. They would sooner cut off their hands than accept money from FOSS.
If I see an executable named "ooffice" it is a symlink to libreoffice, and that's exactly how Oracle wants the world to be.
Larry Ellison fires employees for saying "hi" to him. People who claim that a company he runs only cares about money are living in an Ayn Rand fantasy world where being rich and powerful guarantees logical action. In the real world, some companies are run by spoiled adult children who care more about being seen as powerful and in control than they care about making money for their investors. It isn't like he personally would make less money one way or the other, his compensation is based on industry norms for a rising gap between executive and worker pay.
Nobody starts with Socrates, everybody starts with Plato who uses a character named Socrates.
Socrates himself only got as far as knowing he didn't have any wisdom, and the discovery that neither did anybody else and most of them didn't even know it. Pretty much everything else that he is known to have said were various versions of "You're wrong!" If he bothered to elaborate, it was probably to point out that everybody else was wrong, too.
It is important, but doesn't really contribute much to ethics. Information theory, sure, philosophy generally, sure.
I've never been aware of any ethics in IT/Software develoment. I also know of no board of ethics which can pull a programmer's or administrator's license to operate.
If you know you don't have access to the file, don't try to access the file.
Follow the intent of security procedures, don't try to bypass them just because there wasn't an electric fence keeping you out.
When your employment relationship ends, cease all access to company resources. Turn over passwords/keys. Destroy backups after verifying they are not needed. This all applies to clients accounts, too, not just employment.
Don't include software you didn't write in your work product without permission. Even if you 3 it.
Don't tell anybody outside the company anything, including what the cafeteria special is, unless you're sure that you're supposed to talk about it. Details happen at work, not on twitter. Be away from work when you leave work. Be at work when you arrive at work.
Ethics comes from having agreed standards of conduct, the idea is no premised on having an enforcer who takes away your license. In fact, it might not even be a violation of ethics that gets you fired, it might just be a lack of respect shown for ethics.
Personally, I want to be able to trust people a lot farther than just meeting the minimum ethical standards, so lack of respect is a major red flag that indicates substantial daylight between my minimum standards and their work practices.
Ethics implies that the rules were agreed on, either by society generally, or by some group you're a part of such as an industry, company, etc.
Following arbitrary or dictatorial rules are not a part of ethics, except when there is an ethical agreement to do so under certain conditions. For example, a lawyer might be ethically obligated to follow dictatorial rules during the process of challenging them, while a random person on the street might only be risking an imposed consequence, not any ethical failing.
If the attacker has insider access to China's network, because of their national perimeter firewalls, they could put it all into queries for subdomains of any legit domain in China, and even intercept them so they don't get to the actual name server. They just disappear from the backbone, and the data goes into a database. Responses can happen the same way; the packets don't even exist inside the Chinese network, they just appear on the external interface and off they go to their destination.
If they control intermediate servers they can even do that exact same thing using domains whose name servers are hosted in any compromised datacenter. All they need to control is one managed switch for this to happen.
If there are already ways to catch them or not depends on details, and it is no trouble to imagine something new that wouldn't be detected by the old tests. Just like with the Olympics and drug testing.
Time will tell if this is real, but there are no obvious limits that prevent it from being even worse than claimed.
Wild-caught trout in cold mountain rivers often have pink flesh though. It seems to be the natural color of the meat when the fish get a high quality varied diet, and the grey color is only from commercially farmed fish. "For whatever reason."
Uhm, if somebody put a hardware backdoor in one of the chips on the board, and as far as you know hasn't activated it, why would you expect to see anything "anomalous?"
That you consider that to be information with value really discredits your analysis as a whole.
And you're simply wrong that it needs to "reach out" in a detectable way to be a problem. In fact that's the difference between a hardware backdoor and a software one! The software one has to go through whatever networking you have set up. The hardware one could be doing almost anything, and you have no idea. It could be activated wirelessly through a passive wifi-band antenna that you didn't even know was hiding inside what otherwise looks like a port buffer IC, and that signal could be coming from nearby mobile devices that were also backdoored. There is no reason at all to presume that a major nation-state attacker would not be able to achieve that given the nature of the accusation. It could have already been activated and exfiltrated all your data without you even knowing.
And yet, they do offer an explanation they claim is not only better, but true! That it was only a software issue. They said that in response to the first Bloomberg story. So now Bloomberg is doubling-down on that part.
Investigative reporting doesn't work that way in most cases. There are a lot of unknowns. Right now, they enhance their own research by not giving out too many details, and letting the companies involved say stupid things that might be refutable by that evidence.
Evidence is good. Don't decide if it is actually true or not until you get it. But that doesn't imply that when you first hear about the issue, the evidence will be published, or that it is tactically wise to lead with the evidence instead of the accusation.
If we get to the end of the story and Bloomberg says "that's all we have," that's when you can weigh the evidence they presented. If they haven't presented the evidence yet, then before you start to worry about that, you should simply check if the process has reached the end, of if the evidence is still waiting to be released. If it is still waiting to be released, there is nothing suspicious at all about the fact that you have not been given a personal viewing.
Does anybody think the Chinese government deserves the benefit of the doubt?
Does Bloomberg?
Yes. Bloomberg is a center-right media outlet, and almost all of their profitable business is related to selling financial information to professionals. They make an industry-leading software product called Bloomberg Terminal that they use to disseminate this information.
I wouldn't trust them on political reporting, because they tend to give the perspective of a center-right business executive. But on general news that doesn't relate to their industry, they are nothing if not mainstream. They don't go for bombastic tabloid nonsense, it would tarnish their brand. Getting page views isn't the purpose of their public news service; enhancing their brand is the purpose.
Therefore, I would give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt that they believe this information to be true, and to be of great import to purchasing and IT managers, in addition to investors and financial services providers. This is big enough that the insurance community is probably taking a lot of interest, too. They would never intentionally publish a false report that purported to be of great interest to the industries where they make their bread-and-butter; it would be all downside for them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/comp... Don't worry about the PR there, just look at the bottom of the page under "Products" and "Industry Products" and you can understand why they are a trusted source on this; they'd lose a lot by being wrong. And they have a lot to lose.
Indeed! I assume it gives away all your personal information, and google lies about all their privacy terms.
It seems that their efforts to avoid regulatory interest don't fit well into an overall public relations strategy. After giving away my personal information, and then lying about it (by omission from their regulatory filings as a public company) they really have no position to even ask to be trusted with anything at any level.
The only way for Google to restore user and investor confidence is if the government arrests the executives involved for making false filings to distort the stock price. Anything less leaves the company without even the possibility of being trustworthy.
We're at the tail end here. DID it interfere with critical infrastructure...?
No. In interfered with culture by exposing good English people with ethnic American folk music, causing them to spontaneously start dancing. And not some English dance where you spin in a circle with your back as straight as your upper lip, but rock and blues dancing, a sensual experience involving the whole body, and laying bare emotional exuberance.
But they couldn't stop it, because America, and WWII. So in the end they had to suffer not only the Rolling Stones, but even the Beatles.
They should have been happy, though, because Jefferson Airplane didn't really make it big, and the closest most of their people got to being exposed to hippy music was Donovan, which is about as watered down as if you replace the Clancy Brothers singing Kevin Barry with a church choir version.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to stick it to the man. Show the cashier you don't go for that corporate bullshit. I'm sure it will roll uphill.
Just like your shit rolls uphill and causes your betters to stop sharing their opinions? LOL
I don't care if they're following orders, they're still entirely responsible for the part of it that they do with their own hands.
And companies that don't track push-back at the register are not well-optimized. Companies that are trying hard to make money, that does get recorded. No, they're not going to record your specific philosophical complaint, but they might very well write down that you were unhappy with the checkout process. And when they look at their checkout process, they might indeed find out that the long receipts are good or bad.
Push-back has a lot more potential to create change than writing a letter would. That cashiers often lack training in this reduces the ability of the company to respond, and it also creates needless emotional baggage for the cashier, but that's not the customer's job.
Triple if you wipe with them in an emergency.
I have a 10 year old computer that used to lag running OO, but the past few years it runs libreoffice without any problems.
The thing Sun wrote was bloated and slow. OO added a lot of features. LO is basically "finished" IMO.
One of the great things about IBM, when their old software sucks, they deprecate it. There was a time they were even bribing their professional services clients to switch from AIX to Linux, because AIX didn't have any use case other than "change is hard." Not very much of the software I use is from IBM, but when it is I welcome it. They don't always have my interests in mind, but that's OK because they're honest about their technology in a way that few companies are. I'm not going to use DB2, but they don't try to force me; their stuff integrates fine with PostgreSQL! $lt;3 But yeah, let Lotus Symphony die. There are still people who love Lotus Notes, which is fine for them, but who loves Lotus Symphony? It was like Geocities website builder but for creating proprietary apps. That works better for having semi-technical people write custom report apps than for real software that would get distributed.
Sorry Oracle but you are almost as bad for open source projects as M$.
Look, Oracle is out to make money, no more, no less. If FOSS helps, they will support it, if FOSS isn't helping them make money, they are going to ignore it.
History shows that when they buy a company making money off of FOSS, they change all the policies to be anti-FOSS and happily stop making that money.
Oracle cares where their money comes from. If it doesn't come from doing Evil, they don't want it to tarnish them. They would sooner cut off their hands than accept money from FOSS.
If I see an executable named "ooffice" it is a symlink to libreoffice, and that's exactly how Oracle wants the world to be.
Larry Ellison fires employees for saying "hi" to him. People who claim that a company he runs only cares about money are living in an Ayn Rand fantasy world where being rich and powerful guarantees logical action. In the real world, some companies are run by spoiled adult children who care more about being seen as powerful and in control than they care about making money for their investors. It isn't like he personally would make less money one way or the other, his compensation is based on industry norms for a rising gap between executive and worker pay.
Nobody starts with Socrates, everybody starts with Plato who uses a character named Socrates.
Socrates himself only got as far as knowing he didn't have any wisdom, and the discovery that neither did anybody else and most of them didn't even know it. Pretty much everything else that he is known to have said were various versions of "You're wrong!" If he bothered to elaborate, it was probably to point out that everybody else was wrong, too.
It is important, but doesn't really contribute much to ethics. Information theory, sure, philosophy generally, sure.
I've never been aware of any ethics in IT/Software develoment. I also know of no board of ethics which can pull a programmer's or administrator's license to operate.
If you know you don't have access to the file, don't try to access the file.
Follow the intent of security procedures, don't try to bypass them just because there wasn't an electric fence keeping you out.
When your employment relationship ends, cease all access to company resources. Turn over passwords/keys. Destroy backups after verifying they are not needed. This all applies to clients accounts, too, not just employment.
Don't include software you didn't write in your work product without permission. Even if you 3 it.
Don't tell anybody outside the company anything, including what the cafeteria special is, unless you're sure that you're supposed to talk about it. Details happen at work, not on twitter. Be away from work when you leave work. Be at work when you arrive at work.
Ethics comes from having agreed standards of conduct, the idea is no premised on having an enforcer who takes away your license. In fact, it might not even be a violation of ethics that gets you fired, it might just be a lack of respect shown for ethics.
Personally, I want to be able to trust people a lot farther than just meeting the minimum ethical standards, so lack of respect is a major red flag that indicates substantial daylight between my minimum standards and their work practices.
Ethics implies that the rules were agreed on, either by society generally, or by some group you're a part of such as an industry, company, etc.
Following arbitrary or dictatorial rules are not a part of ethics, except when there is an ethical agreement to do so under certain conditions. For example, a lawyer might be ethically obligated to follow dictatorial rules during the process of challenging them, while a random person on the street might only be risking an imposed consequence, not any ethical failing.
If the attacker has insider access to China's network, because of their national perimeter firewalls, they could put it all into queries for subdomains of any legit domain in China, and even intercept them so they don't get to the actual name server. They just disappear from the backbone, and the data goes into a database. Responses can happen the same way; the packets don't even exist inside the Chinese network, they just appear on the external interface and off they go to their destination.
If they control intermediate servers they can even do that exact same thing using domains whose name servers are hosted in any compromised datacenter. All they need to control is one managed switch for this to happen.
If there are already ways to catch them or not depends on details, and it is no trouble to imagine something new that wouldn't be detected by the old tests. Just like with the Olympics and drug testing.
Time will tell if this is real, but there are no obvious limits that prevent it from being even worse than claimed.
Money remains money, even in a weird year.
Wild-caught trout in cold mountain rivers often have pink flesh though. It seems to be the natural color of the meat when the fish get a high quality varied diet, and the grey color is only from commercially farmed fish. "For whatever reason."
Shhh, don't tell Scotland.
Here is a page with a map of current distribution of wild Atlantic Salmon.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov...
In the US they've been reduced to eight rivers in Maine, but the situation is different in many places.
It would seem to be true with all those salmon in the way, but if you don't catch anything, aren't you still fishing?
Get your jellied kidney and pork bellies out of my fish farm, you're worse than sea lice!
Ireland doesn't sound very happy about it. Perhaps the bigger concern than even New York.
I wonder if Google makes any money in Ireland?
Uhm, if somebody put a hardware backdoor in one of the chips on the board, and as far as you know hasn't activated it, why would you expect to see anything "anomalous?"
That you consider that to be information with value really discredits your analysis as a whole.
And you're simply wrong that it needs to "reach out" in a detectable way to be a problem. In fact that's the difference between a hardware backdoor and a software one! The software one has to go through whatever networking you have set up. The hardware one could be doing almost anything, and you have no idea. It could be activated wirelessly through a passive wifi-band antenna that you didn't even know was hiding inside what otherwise looks like a port buffer IC, and that signal could be coming from nearby mobile devices that were also backdoored. There is no reason at all to presume that a major nation-state attacker would not be able to achieve that given the nature of the accusation. It could have already been activated and exfiltrated all your data without you even knowing.
And yet, they do offer an explanation they claim is not only better, but true! That it was only a software issue. They said that in response to the first Bloomberg story. So now Bloomberg is doubling-down on that part.
Investigative reporting doesn't work that way in most cases. There are a lot of unknowns. Right now, they enhance their own research by not giving out too many details, and letting the companies involved say stupid things that might be refutable by that evidence.
Evidence is good. Don't decide if it is actually true or not until you get it. But that doesn't imply that when you first hear about the issue, the evidence will be published, or that it is tactically wise to lead with the evidence instead of the accusation.
If we get to the end of the story and Bloomberg says "that's all we have," that's when you can weigh the evidence they presented. If they haven't presented the evidence yet, then before you start to worry about that, you should simply check if the process has reached the end, of if the evidence is still waiting to be released. If it is still waiting to be released, there is nothing suspicious at all about the fact that you have not been given a personal viewing.
Does anybody think the Chinese government deserves the benefit of the doubt?
Does Bloomberg?
Yes. Bloomberg is a center-right media outlet, and almost all of their profitable business is related to selling financial information to professionals. They make an industry-leading software product called Bloomberg Terminal that they use to disseminate this information.
I wouldn't trust them on political reporting, because they tend to give the perspective of a center-right business executive. But on general news that doesn't relate to their industry, they are nothing if not mainstream. They don't go for bombastic tabloid nonsense, it would tarnish their brand. Getting page views isn't the purpose of their public news service; enhancing their brand is the purpose.
Therefore, I would give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt that they believe this information to be true, and to be of great import to purchasing and IT managers, in addition to investors and financial services providers. This is big enough that the insurance community is probably taking a lot of interest, too. They would never intentionally publish a false report that purported to be of great interest to the industries where they make their bread-and-butter; it would be all downside for them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/comp...
Don't worry about the PR there, just look at the bottom of the page under "Products" and "Industry Products" and you can understand why they are a trusted source on this; they'd lose a lot by being wrong. And they have a lot to lose.
If they charge a reasonable price for it, people will want to buy it.
If people buy it, they will become fans of it.
If people become fans of it, they will get mad when it is discontinued.
This is the natural evolution of Google's product history. They're just trying to stem the tide of disgruntled former fans who hate them now.
So yes, the extra $500 is totally worth it to Google, as long as nobody actually gives it to them.
Sounds like a real piece of shit!
Indeed! I assume it gives away all your personal information, and google lies about all their privacy terms.
It seems that their efforts to avoid regulatory interest don't fit well into an overall public relations strategy. After giving away my personal information, and then lying about it (by omission from their regulatory filings as a public company) they really have no position to even ask to be trusted with anything at any level.
The only way for Google to restore user and investor confidence is if the government arrests the executives involved for making false filings to distort the stock price. Anything less leaves the company without even the possibility of being trustworthy.
Well, "literally" sure doesn't mean what it used to.
By the way, NSA can't do shit to ISPs. They're not even allowed to admit they exist to an ISP, much less demand something.
In the US, cops can't even come into the ISP's building without a search warrant.
I'd say clue up, but that won't happen. I'll just stick to, "nope yer rong!"
But wuddabout the Masons?
Wuddabout the Illuminati?!
I think the Ofcom statement is simply a regurgitation of some self-serving bureaucratic mythology.
At this point it might just be a self-driving bureaucratic mythology, since the internet makes moot any continuing practical government interest.
We're at the tail end here. DID it interfere with critical infrastructure...?
No. In interfered with culture by exposing good English people with ethnic American folk music, causing them to spontaneously start dancing. And not some English dance where you spin in a circle with your back as straight as your upper lip, but rock and blues dancing, a sensual experience involving the whole body, and laying bare emotional exuberance.
But they couldn't stop it, because America, and WWII. So in the end they had to suffer not only the Rolling Stones, but even the Beatles.
They should have been happy, though, because Jefferson Airplane didn't really make it big, and the closest most of their people got to being exposed to hippy music was Donovan, which is about as watered down as if you replace the Clancy Brothers singing Kevin Barry with a church choir version.