@Fatman Re: Sony manglement
That's all good as far as it goes but how much would it have cost to encrypt the passwords, for example, as opposed to storing them (and all the other information) in plaintext?
1459 posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
That's all good as far as it goes but how much would it have cost to encrypt the passwords, for example, as opposed to storing them (and all the other information) in plaintext?
"Seriously, you need to look at your EULA to see what happened to that concept. "
Do you actually believe that all the clauses of a EULA (or any other agreement, such as an employment contract) are legally-enforceable simply by virtue of the end-user having agreed to it? If you do, you are profoundly mistaken.
"Even after such major breaches, the company was still storing critical information in plain text and without proper encryption, and Sony management made a business decision not to invest in proper security mechanisms, despite repeated warnings from IT staff, the suit claims."
The situation is probably best summed up by the words "criminally-culpable negligence"...
If the upshot of the global warming panic-mongering turns out to be the rehabilitation of nuclear power, it will have been a very good thing overall.
"Noble stand but unless it directly benefits Wall St. financially (actually does but they won't see it) its not going to get passed."
They see it perfectly well. You have maybe missed the various articles on this site about cloud service providers complaining that the Snowden leaks have damaged their business? Or that various countries are passing laws that their citizens' data must be stored in country and not abroad?
Did you miss that stuff?
And considering that this is Ron Wyden, a Google hireling, be sure that his essay and remarks were cleared with Google before being made public. Irrespective of what you think about what he is saying, the *reason* he is saying it, is that it will benefit Google.
"Bets here in the next six months poor Ron Wyden is going to find himself in some type of an embarrassing scandal?"
I will take any odds that nothing of the sort will happen. Unless you want to give me some real life examples...
"I'd watch it for the gay elf orgy. Unless my friend at work was lying."
If I were you, I wouldn't be quite so sure that he's actually your "friend".
"The LoTR trilogy was very good cinema"
I rate these the most tedious movies I've ever seen. And I loved the books - well, I loved them when I first read them long long ago, in a universe... Oops, sorry. Whether I'd like the books if I were to read them now is a good question. And, although I liked the book very much, it would never even occur to me to see "The Hobbit" or any of its constituent parts.
Look at my original question: "I wonder how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid."
Now let's look at your post. First you state "there are plenty of geochemical signatures that - to our current knowledge at least - can only occur with Mars having had a thicker atmosphere." And then - just a few words later - you state "This means that we no longer need to prove that it occurred; there is so much evidence that it did we can simply take it for granted.
So in the span of a few short words you've managed to go from the correct idea that scientific theories are provisional and subject to change (in consequence of the acquisition of better data, different interpretations of the data or of the pre-existing theories on which the theory under discussion is built, or simply in consequence of someone having newer and maybe better ideas), to the completely erroneous idea that science has arrived at something which you seem to think is very, very close to an incontrovertible truth.
That you think that we have arrived at a state where we are able to reveal the ultimate truth in this matter is laughable; I would be very surprised if any scientist actually involved in these matters would take the same view.
What you seem to be unaware of, is that a theory built on a series of high-probability statements becomes a lower-probability theory the more higher-probability statements it includes. Here: calculate the probability of a theory being correct if it is based on FIVE statements each with a 90% probability of being correct. Hint: the probability of five statements, each having a 90% probability of being true, all being true is a somewhat underwhelming 59%.
By the way, that's one of the reasons why astrophysicists, astrobiologists, xenobiologists, and their ilk, want more scientific space missions: because the certitude that you have is something that they don't have. You seem to think that "our current knowledge" has enabled us to arrive at The Truth.
To sum up: your vacuous post and pompous disquisition on how science operates (in your limited understanding) really don't answer the question of "how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid" Some essentially empty babble about "geochemical signatures" and "evidence stacking up" is empty handwaving. And although the earth might indeed be "one hell of a lab" it is not "one hell of a lab" for absolutely whatever needs to be found out - and it might not all that effective for finding out the natural history of Mars. It's possible that extrapolating from the earth to Mars might actually mislead us. This is what needs to be actually be discovered, not merely surmised.
Furthermore, asking how sure scientists really are of their theories is not - as you seem to think - some form of lese majesty against science. What is actually is, is a very valid question.
"which other liquid would that be then, pray tell?"
You didn't understand my question. It was a "question". I didn't ask it because I know the answer. I asked it because I would like to know the answer.
I did however understand your answer, which clearly told me that you don't actually know enough to answer my question - or, that you think that question is so naive as to be worth ridicule.
Here's my question again: How do they know that the liquid that created the features of Mars under discussion was actually water and not some other liquid (such as found on other planets and moons)?
Please, do one of the following two things: Either show me the evidence that proves beyond doubt that it was water and could only have been water, and shows that no other capable liquid could occur on Mars other than water (and since you deemed my question worthy of ridicule, I am expecting a very simple and obvious answer) - or, failing that, you can, alternatively, admit that you actually don't know enough to answer my question and that your smug superciliousness is due to your lack of understanding and knowledge.
"Sedimentary rocks at Mount Sharp" that accompanies the article is an exceptionally beautiful picture. (Not sure if it has been "colorized" or if that is what the human eye would see if it were there in real life, though.)
I wonder how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid.
" In fact the number of unemployed people in the US is more than triple the entire population of Norway. "
A good example of the misuse of statistics. As you yourself noted, the population of the US is 61.5 times greater than the population of Norway. Your comparison proves nothing. You can compare total population to total population - as you did earlier - or you can compare percent of unemployed to percent of unemployed, but a comparison of two completely different and unrelated metrics, total unemployed and total population, is simply disingenuous and misleading if not outright dishonest.
"pictures of house numbers were obviously being used to improve google maps..."
Google can give me a house number if they want but they *never* get a right answer from me. I will *always* sabotage the answer, either by leaving out or, conversely, inserting a digit, or interchanging 1's and 7's, 0's and 8's, 9's and 4's, etc. The important thing is that the number they get is as different as possible from the actual number in the image. For example, changing 7038 to 7036 is not really worthwhile, but changing it to 138 is very satisfying indeed.
"Every organisation must understand the current avenues used to attack payment systems, but must also go beyond that knowledge to completely analyse their entire infrastructure to be certain that it is configured as intended, that security zones are properly configured and enforced, all network devices are hardened against potential attack, any network-accessible vulnerabilities are prioritised first for patching, and generally continuously audit the entire infrastructure to discover any violations of the security architecture before it can be exploited,”
Can they get this done for free?
"If you change the base to 8 you can calculate pie as 3.1recurring alot easier to use"
As easy as pie, in fact.
"The project initially had a budget of AU$6 million...Things snowballed from there, with the project eventually costing well over a billion dollars...."
This is very very impressive. Not even the Pentagon could manage something like this.
What a coincidence! I had been using weather.com for years, but stopped about a week ago, after they rolled out their new, less usable site design, which lets you have even *less* information on the screen at one time than before - and "before" was already a disimprovement from their previous layout.
For some reason, website designers think that people go to websites in order to click buttons and play with gadgets than accomplish a purpose.
"I did say I was tolerant of dodgy plots. At least lots more people have now heard of Turing and mostly a positive viewpoint, hell, if Keira Knightly would marry him, he must be okay."
The Imitation Game is pretty nearly 100% bullshit. I doubt there are really all that many people who haven't heard of Turing as he's been the poster child for gay rights for quite a long time now. This movie is not about Turing to any significant degree, it's about a nearly completely fictional character who happens to have Turing's name.And there is nothing positive about the chief character first uncovering and then abetting a spy in Bletchley Park. Difficult to believe that the real Turing would have done that.
"Socially responsible companies wouldn’t want to bamboozle their users..."
But financially responsible companies would.
"Their own staff are a valuable beta testing resource, yet they're not using them for this purpose"
Of course not. Their staff has *real* work to do.
As usual, demands for equality turn out to be demands for preferential and discriminatory hiring practices.
" I started with the chassis of a Mk. VI Bentley that had been in a field (forming part of the fence) for 15 years. It had the rear axle, the front suspension and nothing else. It was also considerably lightened; not for racing but by rust. You can imagine the first steps – strip bits off, sandblast chassis, paint, refurbish bits, bolt back on."
Reminds me of a very old track by the Who, "Bucket T" which goes :"Found her in a barn in Tennessee / Paid five bucks for my Bucket T / Took me three years of sweat and blood / To clean off all of that Tennessee mud..."
"'Get Ready for some tin pot science' I prefer 'pot still' science. Let me explain...."
*I* think it's "pot head" science and I don't think that there's any need to explain.
"The biggest corporate tax evader in the history of the United States should not only be dissolved, but all those founders and board members, whether knowingly or not, be placed in prison for no less then twenty years for their crimes. The IRS will be closing the doors on this company soon!"
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...
"Wolfe is said to be close to one of Bumble's reported financial backers,..."
Wink wink nudge nudge.
"Google is running the subscription system on a "very limited" trial run. The handful of participating sites include The Onion..."
Oh, I remember The Onion! I used to go to their site pretty regularly but that was a long time ago. Before they started to put less and less stuff to read in favor of more and more stuff to watch...
Irony Alert: note that I used the same spelling that's in the article (in spite of that fact that it was changed after I posted my comment.)
"As you'd expect for a book aimed at preteen doll players this isn't Hemmingway."
Why not? The vocabulary's too extensive for it to be Hemmingway?
"Pahlka's solution while back in the Bay Area is to try to push a sense of civic duty onto Silicon Valley's best and brightest: 'There has been an economic boom but it's not benefiting everybody. The idea is to get people to think that it's your duty to go into government, even for a short time, in order to fix things.'"
Clever. She's appealing to the very people who are themselves the "root cause" of why any economic booms are not benefiting everyone. In fact those are the people who set up their own bus services for their employees only. And who are pushing low and even middle income people out of that very Bay Area where she evidently gave her harangue. Their idea of how to "fix things" (as exemplified in the Hargreaves aka the Google report) is to give themselves every greater freedom of action at everyone else's expense. When they're not burning through venture capital they're evading taxes. That's what they're best at. There's a reason that Libertarianism is so popular in Silicon Valley - they want everyone to work for semi-starvation wages, in a world where you can either drive for Uber or work in an Amazon warehouse. We could have more people like Andrew MacLaughlin - working for the White House by day and illegally consulting with his former comrades at his former employer, Google at night. And in the day, too. Well whenever he damn well feels like it.
And emulating the UK is exactly what we don't need for fuck's sake! Do we *really* need more boondoggles like smart meters, or forcing everyone to share their medical records, or teaching kids how to code to insure a larger (and therefore lower paid) cohort of programmers for their future employers in the tech industry? Do we need to expropriate all our photographers and make sure that Google can use all the IP it wants both at no cost and at the expense of those who created it?
Stuff like this scares me, it really does.
"<joke>The only way to be sure is to nuke them from orbit</joke>"
Or, let's say, confiscate the proceeds of the swindle and put the perpetrators in prison for a long, long time.
"'This doesn’t couple us very closely to Google,' he said, 'and we don't need air to breathe or food to eat either. We are idealists and consequently above all that.'"
"Adobe appoints former Reg man as open-source chief mobile lead"
Maybe they didn't know.
"The shield code is 1, 2, 3, 4. That's the same code I have on my luggage"
I actually laughed when I read this.
The problem is very simple. Security is inconvenient, and the more secure, the more inconvenient.
Of course, there's also the fact that people who are willing to run the risk of criminal activity usually feel pretty invulnerable to begin with - or else they wouldn't run the risk in the first place. And a sense of invulnerability does not lead one to tolerate the inconvenience associated with good security.
"Tim Cook... morphing into Bill Gates right before our eyes..."
You know, I'm trying to think of anything Microsoft has ever done that's similar to this and I can't. Could you refresh my memory?
“Gojira” is the Japanese name for Godzilla, should there be anyone here who does not already know this li'l factlet.
"So CERN found a particle and it behaves as they expected a Higgs Boson should. Now a bunch of Danes are saying it's not the Higgs Boson, it's some mystery particle... that also happens to behave exactly like you'd expect the Higgs Boson to."
While I agree with your post, you have not paid sufficient attention to a particular (see what I did there?) statement in the article: "One way, they say, would be for CERN to build an even larger collider to better observe the particles and provide more evidence as to the existence of the theorized techni-quarks."
In a word: "funding-drive".
"'Most of the crowd seemed to be the usual rent-a-mob of left-wing sympathisers.' So, no bias there then."
It's not "bias" if it's true. Unless of course you subscribe to Socialist Realism, in which case it's only true if it's politically and propagandistically advantageous.
" a human should be free to put whatever substance they choose into their own bodies. "
Lemme tell you what the problem with that is. People often become addicted to substances to which they can not afford to be addicted. I haven't heard of a lot of junkies being able to support their habits for long out of their own savings and incomes, y'know? And since society at large is going to have to clean up the mess eventually, it's their prerogative to outlaw addictive drugs if they want to.
Now, I might be in favor of letting people use whatever drugs they want if they first agreed to surrender their civil rights, and if they show that they can afford to finance their drug addictions without resorting to crime, and, furthermore, not only should there be no obligations for the government or society to deliver any medical care (or any other care of any kind) to such people but that any charity given to junkies be not only not tax-deductible, but heavily taxed.
"The sort of sick fuck who would murder someone for internet fame, perhaps."
How did you manage to get that from the story? 'Cause it wasn't there. To me, the fact that he wrote "She killed me first" on the wall kind of makes his "reasons" pretty clear. So your explanation could be very interesting.
Another day, another study....
"You can just imagine this becoming widespread, and scientists, even normal ones, having a second, evening job in show business, advising film-makers, TV production companies, theatre impresarios, writers...it would be cool to be a scientist and loads of kids would want to get into it...instead of studying things like Media and Marketing studies*...that would be good for the kids, for the films / TV shows, and for the world as a whole!"
You couldn't be more wrong. "Scientists in showbiz" portends nothing good for science. Unless your idea of "cool" is watching Michio Kaku spout his bullshit on tv. And if you think that competition for fame and the wealth that is often attached to it somehow breeds anything useful other than venal people.
I also downvoted it. Because of the very first line which if you have forgotten was "Desperate attention-seeking behavior by the Sams..."
"Google says it is looking to develop a pill that could help detect the early stages of cancer or heart disease."
I don't have access to the article's source (WSJ behind a paywall) so I can't look for myself, but is this just blue-sky bullshit of the kind that Google seems to emit on a regular basis to give people (and the stock market, no doubt) the idea that they are going to save humanity but then is quietly forgotten, or is there real workable technology behind this?
... but where does the money go? I know where it comes from (idiots with more money than sense and, I imagine, money managers who get a percent of the money invested, not the return on that money) but where does it actually go, once Twitter gets it?
"Twitter's data licensing and other businesses also showed impressive year-on-year growth."
They wouldn't by any chance be "licensing" that data to various government agencies, would they? If they could just be a bit more intrusive, they would have more "data" to license, and more money to, you know, burn through.
As someone once said, although in a very different context, "What a world! What a world!".
Here's another point (which I neglected to put in my previous post):
"The true 'written form' has evolved over thousands of years..." (Emphasis added.)
And so Simplified Chinese is not a "true written form" of Mandarin because you don't consider orthographic reforms - whether Mao claimed credit for them or not is irrelevant - to be part of a language's evolution.
That's certainly a very original point of view. It's also a very wrong point of view.
You seem to think that my opinion is that if Simplified Chinese is real Mandarin, then Traditional Chinese must somehow be "false" Mandarin. This is not my position. They are *both* real Mandarin.
You seem to object, for whatever half-wit reasons you may have, to Mandarin written in Simplified Chinese being called "real Mandarin"; are *you* saying that it is "false" Mandarin?
"Today I have learned something that I did not know before."
You have learned this the same way that *I* learn things nowadays: by finding out that I was dead wrong about something.
Accept my sympathy and commiserations.
"Facebook's already part of the NSA's spying apparatus. How Facebook gonna work in China?"
By becoming part of the Chinese spying apparatus.
"Then again it also takes a certain mindset to plough absolutely everything back into the business."
Don't discount the money he gets in salary, expense accounts, stock options, and other assorted benefits. They are not negligible. Amazon as a corporation might not be making a profit but don't think that Bezos is anything other than very well compensated.