Did Microsoft forget to pay IDC this quarter?
6994 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
Re: The truth is not relevant to politics
You can't backdoor encryption, but you can key escrow. That's a function of money and bureaucracy, not mathematics. Anyone using encryption where the key isn't in the system is a criminal and gets banged up for it. For minor offenses it's probably a fine and/or 5 years in jail, just like possessing marijuana. But if you use it in conjunction with a crime they'll use it to send you up a creek for good.
Don't confuse "can't stop everyone, all of the time" with an inability to regulate and criminalize. The technology exists to regulate encryption and prosecute those who choose to violate the new laws.
Remember: the government has no problems making all of us buy new computers/phones/etc. Give it a 5 year grace period and sure as shit, they'd feel perfectly okay banning any un-escrowed encryption and fining/jailing those who don't comply.
Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.
Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence. Nor are they open minded enough to allow for the possibility. But they need to believe that there isn't one.
And fair enough. That's their shout. I have no problem with that. But it is no more rational than the need to believe that one exists.
And yes, you know what, it absolutely is a belief. Short of certain types of mathematical proofs everything in human experience is based on belief. Shit, what you see as the colour "blue" isn't what I see as the colour "blue", but we all believe we know what "blue" looks like.
Or, most of us do. Some of us understand the malleability of human perception, but then we not only are talking about a slim minority, but those people also tend to get very meta about their thinking very fast.
Humans need belied. Belief is certainty. It doesn't have to be huge. It can be as simple as "I saw Bob at the bagel shop yesterday". Our memory is fallible. It could have been Bob, it could have not been Bob. Unless there's camera footage showing you seeing Bob there's really no reason to be sure you saw Bob...but we can't live every moment of every day with that kind of uncertainty about everything. So we believe we saw Bob. Even those of us who know how flawed human memory is, because these beliefs make life easier.
Now, getting on to bigger things - a god, no god, multiple gods - this is one more time all really related to our emotional well being. Some people need to believe in a god for various reasons. Forgiveness, "it's not really my fault", some reason to self-flagellate...who knows? It's different for everyone.
Some people need to believe in an afterlife - this is separate from a belief in a god, but usually intertwined. Some people need to believe both aren't possible. Some don't know what do believe and just don't care.
But yes, belief is everywhere in the human experience. We need it just to get through our day. Even if someone is agnostic about the existence of a god/gods or not doesn't make them capable of begin agnostic about everything. Similarly, no human has even been found to ardently believe that everything they can't prove doesn't exist.
Our sanity is based on our ability to believe. In the small things and sometime in the large.
And despite your claims otherwise, coercion can indeed change belief. So true is this that there are multiple sciences dedicated to refining techniques in this regard. All to many of them work shockingly well.
So what do you believe? And why? What drives those beliefs? What gave rise to that drive? And what do you require to change your beliefs? When have you changed them in the past?
Who are you, and why are you that person? What you strive to be and why? Beliefs are their driving motivations are laced up in all of it. Belief in something. Belief in the absence of something. Belief even in nothing at all.
Aren't people interesting?
"Dogma, by definition, is that which you must accept without argument."
Dogma is everywhere. Scientific as well as religious. Just because a text can be interpreted to contain dogma does not mean that, by definition it is dogma. How dogmatic - or not - a given text is really boils down to who is doing to the teaching and who is doing the listening.
I, for example, was raised with dogmatic science teachers and very liberal religious teachers. My Science teachers taught me to memorize by rote and never to question. My religious teachers taught me to think for myself.
You are interjecting your experience and worldview and claiming it as a truth. You are the dogmatic here, sir The world, in my experience at least, is a hell of a lot more complex that you're portraying it.
"The difference isn't that important. The scientific approach is put everything on the 0.0 list until evidence moves it to the 99.999999 list."
No, that's not science. That's a religion based around science.
Science is a process and doesn't contain a judgment - implicit or explicit - about what should or should not be investigated, questioned, considered or believed.
Individuals make their own choices about what to believe based on some of the results of science. That is belief, not matter which sets of evidence that individual chooses to prioritize. The "scientific approach" doesn't exist. There is no such there. There are merely procedures that can help with gathering evidence.
Everything else is scientific consensus. You choose to believe in some, all or none of the various scientific consensuses, but your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence on various topics is still a belief.
And, statistically speaking, your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence available is probably wrong. Now, as to the evidence for your choices in belief likely being wrong, well...let's ask science...
"Atheism is not a belief at all. Strictly it is absence of belief"
Wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (or gods) and cannot be. If you accept that there might be then you aren't an athist. You're an agnostic. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing.
The distinction is fine, but very, very important.
"The rational position is that without evidence, we don't know anything at all, which is entirely at odds with the pre-suppositionalists which take a different starting point. This is the basis of the atheist standpoint."
Atheism presupposes knowledge. It presupposes that there is no deity and that there cannot be a deity. Agnosticism waits for the evidence, and doesn't try to say either way which is true.
Atheism is no more rational and theism.
Re: Blame Game
"Hey, Government, why can't you stop terrorism?"
Short of wiping out humanity, stopping terrorism isn't possible. To think otherwise is absurdly naive.
So long as humans have the capability to disagree with one another there will be some humans who disagree with the majority. So long as humans disagree with one another, there will be some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs. So long as there are some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs there will be some humans who are willing to kill for their beliefs.
If you want to nip that in the bud you must remove from humans the ability to disagree with one another. In doing so, you have removed from us our defining trait: independence of thought. What you've created at that point is no longer human. It is a separate species, quantitatively different from that which exists now.
The only way to stop terrorism is to end our species forever. Is that what you advocate?
Re: Magical Thinking
The powers that be have persisted in a destructive "war on drugs" for decades against the advice of experts. Why should this be different? So long as they can find one or two tame "experts" for every thousand experts that say they're wrong, they'll persist in the course they feel has the best chance of getting them elected.
The truth is not relevant to politics.
Re: re. San Bernadino killings
Do you really think that matters in this debate? Not "should matter", but "actually does matter"?
"We" is "society at large".
More specifically, "we" is "those of us who can vote, now or in the next election cycle" as this is when this particular topic will be decided for our generation. And probably for the one or two that come after us as well.
"We" need to talk about this. Amongst ourselves in smaller groups, in larger fora and yes, at the ballot box. "We" will be setting laws about this via our elected representatives here in the next few years. Civil disobedience via using outlawed software will only get individuals thrown in jail.
To be more blunt about this: the USA - amongst others - has proven via the "war on drugs" taht they have no problem whatsoever throwing a significant percentage of their population in jail for "crimes" (such as possession of personal amoutns of soft drugs like marijuana) that don't have an effect on society at large and don't pose a danger to anyone other than the individual being jailed.
Disobedience is more than reason enough for the powers that be to spend hundreds of billions of dollars jailing tens of millions of people.
If you care about this problem, then "you" needs to be part of "we" and "we" have to do something about it. Otherwise the "war on encryption" will replace the "war on drugs" as the new cash cow for the prison industry, and your open source VPN, IM or torrent client will be like a gigantic beacon pointing directly at you screaming "me! Me! Lock me up, I'm guilty of disobedience!"
And no, you won't be able to hide from them. Law enforcement agencies don't give up budget. With the war on drugs winding down, they need a new target.
Please help us ensure that those of us who think encryption is important aren't the not that target.
"Rational" is hard to define. There are a bunch of Randians who honestly and earnestly believe that altruism doesn't exist. They believe that everyone is selfism and that altruism is merely selfishness in disguise. I don't believe that. I believe selfishness and altruism to be two points along a spectrum and that human behaviors varies greatly along this spectrum depending on a combination of individual and circumstances.
Both the Randians and I can point to science that can be interpreted to back up our viewpoints.
So who is "rational" here? Who gets to determine "rational", especially when you are not even attempting to thinly veil your belief that "rational" equates to "correct"? (Or that "rational" means "what you, personally" believe, which you also seem to think is by default correct*.)
I can interpret the King James version of the Bible such that it demands extremism. I can also interpret it such that it demands love, caring and respect. I can do the same thing for pretty much every religious text out there.
I'm no fan of most religions, but what society needs to become less tolerant of is bigotry. Religion versus religion versus atheism versus yet more religion is pointless. why don't we work on "tolerating one another's differences", and work from there towards "celebrating one another's differences"? that makes for a much better world.
<sarcasm>In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me - rationally - why your form of bigotry is more "rational" than anyone else's. Maybe you can include how it makes the world a better place. This is the internet, after all, and we're all just dying to hear more about why we should hate one or more identifiable groups of people. It really helps build the world I - or most people - want to live in.</sarcasm>
And as for your "dogma is dogma" crack: you're full of shit. Religious texts aren't binary. They are documents that are interpreted to have personal meaning to each individual who studies them. You have no more right to tell anyone that a religious text must be interpreted in a binary fashion as any so-called religious leader.
The hypocrisy dripping off your posts is tangible.
*Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another.
The 'moderates' make up the overwhelming number of believers in Islam. I'm pretty sure that it is the minority who get labeled "perversion" in just about any context. Just sayin'...
The problem, really, is trust. Even if it were possible to build technologies that allow for law enforcement access (and something along the lines of mandatory key escrow might be doable, with a big enough bureaucracy,) there is no way that you'll convince me that our glorious leaders won't abuse that power.
Having spies spy on us in order to see if we've dark sided and are about to fly some planes into things? Okay, fine. But the instant they start using that capability to detect petty crimes (say, buying marijuana, copyright infringement for personal use, or grey market importation of goods) we're into a completely different world.
This is all of it - all of it - a question about the very principle of the presumption of innocence.
Our society only functions because - by and large - we ignore the petty, day-to-day crimes that we all commit. Each and every one of us breaks the law - knowingly or not - several times a day. If we could see every violation of every individual and chose to act on that, our entire way of life would collapse.
We couldn't reasonably prosecute everyone, several times a day. We couldn't expect people to live in fear all day every day that they might be fined or jailed for something they didn't even know was illegal. We cannot expect any citizen to know the totality of the laws in their own jurisdictions, let alone all jurisdictions they interact with digitally or physically.
How would we pay for it? Where does the money for those fines come from? The money for the lawyers, the judges, the jails?
This discussion is what is missing in this debate
Real world limits on the capabilities of spies. Limits on the sharing of information. Limits on what they will look for, what they will prosecute, how the information uncovered will be used. Real world consequences if those limits are worked around, loopholed or otherwise abused.
Maybe the ability to scan our communications is necessary in order to stop the Really Bad Things from happening. If this is the case, then before we even have a discussion about what compromises in technology we're willing to put up with in order to enable that, we need to have a VERY public discussion about how we're going to limit law enforcement use of those powers. FOREVER.
Helion Public cloud is closing. Helion private cloud is in fact doign quite well and finding more and more customers each quarter.
Re: if you want to see long life equipment...
HP Laserjet II and LaserJet III+ models were the absolute pinnacle of printer design. Best damned printers mankind ever produced. Shame about everything since.
No, that is not the question.
The question is: did the individuals running the company make more money (in bonuses, etc) by doing IT wrong than they would have by doing IT right?
What is good for the company or its customers is not actually relevant in the company is run.
RedHat is not Linux
No, it's systemd.
Well, for one, you check to see if Charlie is advertising a route back to Bob. If both networks are willing to register connectivity to one another and have high reputation, you trust them. If, however, you have a record of someone else owning Charlie's block who not only does advertise their connectivity but participates in the reputation system and then Bob starts advertising about connectivity to Charlie that Charlie is in turn not also advertising about, you either fail to accept the route or you squash it all the way down the reputation system so that the slightest glitch means they get dropped.
And they used to say "the internet routes round damage".
It has. Unfortunately the world's governments have been working hard to ensure that any overlay networks that ensure privacy and security not only are eventually compromised, but are illegal or outright blocked.
Trust is fundamental to the current internet. Unfortunately, trust is damage. Thus the fundamentals of the internet must be replaced or overlaid upon with network and protocol designs that don't require trust. The result, however, won't be anything like the internet of yore. The internet can't route around itself without becoming something altogether different.
And, quite frankly, that's a good thing. The internet should be a bastion of free speech and anonymity. A place where people can communicate without fear of surveillance. Only then can new ideas truly be explored and - ultimately - flourish.
Until then, the Internet is merely a means to give everything you are and have over to those who have proven repeatedly they will use all of it against you.
We really need an "International Industrial Espionage Day" where we educate people about how the internet is where governments laugh and play and surveil the innocent. Usually for economic benefit.
I understand my history just fine, thanks. I even understand the issues in transitioning from the old to the new.
Problem is, even new protocols being developed today rely on trust. The internet still relies utterly on people to behave with honour. People don't. Governments especially don't.
It is a pain to transition to a new architecture. It will take decades and billions of dollars. Tough. It needs done. Best to start down the path and get it over with.
Unfortunately, we're in the process instead of having the technocrats try to transition us to shit like IPv6. This doesn't benefit the individual in any way, but instead makes them even more vulnerable, traceable and exposed. Yes, I understand IPv6 is from the beforetime when chowderheads still believed in trust. But any attempts to actual solve the problems in IPv6 such that individual privacy is made paramount (or start a post-IPv6 transition that will move us to such a protocol) are simply shouted down.
The technocrats are obsessed with making life easy for developers. (See: end-to-end model obsession, amongst many other things.) Anything that requires a poor developer to load a few extra libraries and understand a little bit about network when designing an application is apparently such a cosmic problem that everyone else should be rendered tracable all the time.
And IPv6 is just one example.
The BGP issue can be solved by making two routing tables on the net. One secure and one insecure. BGP, of course, being insecure. Systems advertising along secure channels would have a multi-point reputation system. Some central registrar (preferably multiple, in different jurisdictions) would ensure that A) yes, the organization in question has the right to post routes and has agreed to play nice and B) owns X routes, and can advertise them as they wish.
If an organization tries to advertise routes on the secure channel that belong to someone else (which should be fairly easily traceable with the reputation system above) then those routes aren't accepted, and the reputation of the sender is demoted.
If there ever appear to be two "legitimate" owners of a route - which shouldn't happen, but does from time to time due to administrative screw-ups - then the providers with the highest reputation wins, until the issue is resolved.
BGP routes would then be considered as the lowest reputation routes. They will be accepted, but only if they are not overridden by a more reputable and verified source using the secure channel.
Oh look, we now have a transition mechanism. That was hard.
Yes, the reputation managers in this system would have many of the same flaws as certification authorities. This can be partially mitigated by having multiple reputation managers in multiple jurisdictions, making it hard (though admittedly not impossible) to compromise all of them.
We could also look at some sort of distributed reputation system (blockchain-based? It's all the rage!) that supplements the "canonical" reputation systems, but is based more on "number of times an advertiser has caused route problems".
Essentially the transition mechanism could be handled as something along the lines of a more advanced SPAM blacklist/greylist system, incorporating lessons learned from those attempts and giving ultimate priority to those advertisers who have done the leg work to get properly verified and whose ownership of a route can be confirmed through multiple sources.
Clearly, however, this is completely unworkable and impossible. Because reasons.
Trust is anathema to privacy and to security. Relying on it for anything is ridiculous.
To err is human. To really cock up requires a committee.
See: the design of pretty much every internet protocol since the beforetime. Anything that relies on trust is automatically a failure. Too bad techocrats never seem to understand that.
Re: Filter feeder
Re: User count
I agree. Anyone paying Oracle or Microsoft to rob them is nonsense.
If my name was Donald I would have it changed. The Donald has ruined it for everyone. Just like people with the last name Hitler changed their name, I would really think about not in any way ever being associated with "Donald" or "Trump" for several generations, at least.
At least Hitler didn't ruin "Adolf" as thoroughly as Trump has ruined "Donald".
So, EU. How do we get to a realistic set of guidelines that all the intelligence services might adhere to?
I hope not!
When spies in the EU break the law they can be held to account through the courts. When foreign spies break the law in the EU they cannot. That's the simple truth.
Is GHCQ violating EU human rights laws? Yes. Are they in court for it? Yes!
It might take decades, but the wheels of justice do and will turn. GHCQ, BND and all the others will be brought to heel. Probably just by the end of our lifetimes, but it will happen.
The US spies will never be brought to heel. Not by and for the benefit of their own people, but certainly not such that they grant the same legal rights to Europeans as Americans have...and give both parties the right to challenge the spying in a court of law.
That's the difference. It isn't about what can be made to happen today or tomorrow. The arguments of "well EU countries are doing the same thing" is aught but silly buggers and not only irrelevant to the discussion but missing the point of the exercise entirely.
This is about legal accountability. In the EU governments are legally obligated to be the servants of their people. People are not servants of their governments. Change takes time, and millions will be violated while that change unfolds...but it does fucking occur.
The US government is not accountable to the citizens of the EU. It is thus perfectly rational to deny them the ability (insomuch as it is possible) to violate the rights of EU citizens.
EU governments have the right to have the ability to violate the rights of EU citizens because if they do they can be held to account. It is an honour system that is flawed, but it is better than the complete fuck all that EU citizens have in the face of the Americans.
Does anybody really believe that Republicans like Donald and (insert any name...) actually represent the American people
I honestly and ardently believe that The Donald's batshit bannanas bigoted bullshit represents between 15% and 30% of the American people, depending on how you want to crunch the numbers (and a lot of smart people are doing just that, so the error bars will shrink with time.)
Unfortunately, these are passionate individuals who can and will vote. They are a power bloc that cannot and shout not be ignored. 50% - 60% of Americans are so apathetic they don't seem to care strongly about anything. They don't and won't vote and they spend more time mocking anyone who stands up for a firmly held belief than standing up for any belief of their own.
That leaves (depending on how you crunch the numbers) between 10% and 35% of Americans who care strongly about something other than The Donald's bigotry enough to combat him.
10% - 35% versus 15% - 30%. I really - really - don't like those odds, especially when amongst that 10%- 35% of people opposed to The Donald there are a largish number of establishment republicans.
So you know what? Yeah. The Donald and his gang of sociopathic nutjobs very well might represent America. Or, more accurately, they quite possibly represent the largest block of people who are not just completely apathetic.
America is best represented by a grime-stained t-shirt that says "meh, fuck it". Unfortunately for the rest of the world, you won't be giving a t-shirt personal command over nuclear fucking weapons. You'll be most likely handing that power over to someone who is horrible, horrifying and megalomaniacal. No matter which party happens to win.
Seriously, if you guys don't elect Bernie Sanders we're all pretty much fucked. Please don't screw us, America. Please.
"I take away from this the message that the proponents of this RFC value Identity politics and feelings over producing something that works."
How is that any worse than the current territorialism, penis measuring and blatant corporate self interest?
Either way, "producing something that works" is not the focus, and the majority of people are left out in the cold, their needs unmet.
Re: Who is John Galt?
Ayn Rand...gives many people the same bad aftertaste as the Idiocracy movie, but she wasn't wrong.
Fuck yes she was. In just about every way. Some people are very much like those she describes. Most aren't. Unfortunately, the people who follow her philosophy A) believe everyone else is "just like them" (massively false) and B) tend to gravitate towards positions of power where they can do the most amount of damage to the largest number of people.
Ayn Rand's teaching are how you raise monsters. You take people who are already bordering on sociopaths and then you provide them excuses for their malignant, bigoted neuroses and a convenient scapegoat in the form of "under it all, everyone is actually just as horrible as me".
Now, don't get me wrong, I loathe the SWJ "blame and shame" approach to life too. (It's very Protestant, when you think about it.) But those nutters are merely the flip side of the coin. Ayn Rand's self-centered bigot brigade on one side and SJWs on the other.
The majority of humanity doesn't belong to either camp. Life isn't so easily reductionist that everyone neatly fits into one of the two boxes. We're really complex creatures. Neither fully altruistic nor fully selfish. Which is probably why most of resist either extreme trying to make us into a pure version of one end of a spectrum. Any spectrum.
Ayn Rand. Oy vey.
This could be a very good thing.
I hope it helps reduce the tendency towards quasi-religious "technical" arguments that favour one group of technologists or use cases over all others. Maybe we'll even see an acknowledgement by the IETF that vendors can't be counted on to play nice. They won't deploy patches, updates or new protocols just because the technocrats agreed upon them.
Vendors, service providers and so forth willl wring every last dollar possible out of what they have. Similarly, consumers and SMBs want 10 year lifespans (at least!) for their equipment.
For me it would be nice to see people who champion the idea that "that just because money is essentially free to academia and the large enterprise world doesn't mean it is to the rest of us" aren't mocked, ridiculed, berated, shamed and ultimately forced out. I realize that's a pipe dream, but it is my dream of inclusion and consideration regarding the IETF.
In the meantime, let's get any diversity possible going at the IETF. New ideas. New approaches. New people. Go forth, technocrats, and diversify!
Re: Anyone remember Frontpage?
"Good pay doesn't generate experienced developers"
Experience generates a demand from developers for good pay.
Treating them like shit and not meeting their pay demands encourages them to seek employment elsewhere.
But please, go run your little company in the belief that you can always win with the worst paid people. I'll enjoy your bankruptcy.
Re: Anyone remember Frontpage?
"I have personally never met a truly talented IT person of the type I recruit (developer or otherwise) who left the IT field to do something else more profitable."
Then you haven't met a lot of people. I can point you at well over a thousand top-flight nerds who've left the field for something more profitable. Most of them into management. Some into jobs that are only equally as profitable but where the hours are far more flexible and they have way less stress. (This was a route I took, though I would be among the least qualified of the group I am talking about.)
There comes a point where $200k is just not worth the misery that comes with the job. Especially when you can get $200k just about anywhere else for far less effort.
Skilled developers are a dime a dozen. And if I am perfectly honest, the skilled developers never really stop being developers: they continue writing programs all the time, but they stop doing it for corporate overlords.
Those developers might become management or marketing or what-have-you, but they then contribute to open source, or write things that amuse them or they transition to infosec, using their skills for hacking.
Ahhh, infosec. Infosec absorbs good developers like a black hole accreting matter. If you are, in fact, a skilled developer you can take you $100k salary and make it $250k over night. A $250k developer can be a $1M infosec nerd in few months.
So sorry, mate. If you honestly think that skilled developers - or even mediocre ones! - stick with the punitive position of "corporate bitch" for overlong, we have some very different definitions of skilled.
Anyone remember Frontpage?
The entire idea that there "aren't enough developers" is horse manure. There are a functionally unlimited supply, many of them trained, experienced and idle. The problem is that nobody wants to pay them a living wage or provide humane working conditions. So the developers leave the field and go elsewhere.
The new developers brought in to replace them aren't as experienced. They are willing to work for peanuts at first, but realize quickly that living with 12 room mates in a 3 bedroom that's 400sq ft is asstastic and they go do something more profitable.
If you want more quality coders pay their rates. Otherwise you get commodity software developed by commodity developers.
Re: Why do they do it?
That will work really well once your house is on fire. And that isn't one disk, is it? It's two.
Re: Why do they do it?
If your data does not exist in at least two places then it does not exist.
Re: Google used to be a search engine...
Microsoft and Hollywood haven't made a religion out of turning Verizon into a boogyman. That's how.
Cisco: a trustworthy member of the IT community.
Today's nuclear waste is tomorrow's nuclear fuel.
"I thought that one of the roles of the judiciary is to give protection from abuse of political powers."
You're pretty old, aren't you? The role of the judiciary is to protect the political class from dissidents.
Re: Ale or GTFO
If all you drink is that liquid bread shite then who'd want you?
Lager all the way.
Re: Complete invulnerability?
I can think of a dozen different "properly configured" VPN implementations I can crack. So that sort of puts paid to your very bad design.
Eggshell computing is a horrible, horrible, horrible security design. You are wrong and you should feel bad.
Re: Just one thing
Government anything is typically late, over-budget and doesn't work. Unless that government project is about oppressing their own citizens. Then it's delivered early, under-budget and is creepily efficient.
They can never make something that lets you renew your driver's license quickly, or distribute smart cards so we can all vote online, but damned if they don't get license plate recognition and automated speed fines working in a matter of weeks after it's legalized.
Re: @Trevor_Pott "They've reversed the polarity on the tachyon inverter"
I'm actually really disappointed noone got the scope of the reference. Yes, it was a TNG joke. The Enterprise-D didn't have a tachyon generator, let alone a tachyon "inverter". (And a reversed polarity inverter should just be a normal generator.) The Enterprise-D consistently had to monkey with the main deflector to produce tachyons in anything other than very small quantities, and having at any point something that "inverts" the operation of the main deflector would be a very bad thing for that ship.
It's worth noting, however, that the Defiant regularly produced both Tachyons and Chronitons without having to involve the main deflector. Presumably the Enterprise's need to send some red shirt to get melted by a plasma leak in the Jefferies tubes every time a tachyonic something or other was required meant that generators for those were added as standard equipment. </giant nerd>
That said, hat tip to Alister for picking up on the "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" which was indeed front of mind when I started crafting the sentence.
I disagree. You're making a classic mistake thinking that defense is essentially a checkbox-following procedure of "doing the right things". It's not. You need to think messily. You need to think of new and innovative ways to break your own design.
The stuff that shelfware exists to solve is only a small part of the problem. It is nothing more than the beginning. Good defense, like great offense, requires totally orthogonal thinking. And yes, it will and does require implementing things that don't exist as off-the-shelf products. Open source or not.
Attacking is easier than defending. It is easy to train attackers. It is not so easy to find attackers who have flipped over and trained to defend.
A good defender needs experience attacking. A good attacker does not need experience defending, though they could do with studying the shelfware.
"transformative, flexible and agile as we are becoming, while standing out from the pack"
Was "everything else was taken" somehow not an acceptable response? It makes me physically ill that anyone got paid to come up with this bullshit, and I work with marketdroids 8 hours a day.
I came up with a logo for my company when we started. It is an albino bristlenose plecostomus. When asked, I can and do give honest reasons why. Namely:
1) I like bristlenosers. I think they're cute. They have a lot of personality and their antics in a community tank make me smile.
2) Almost nobody knows what it is, so it's a great conversation starter.
But seriously, HP? It's a rectangle. A rectangle. How the metric fuck is it "agile" or "flexible"? And how in the name of His Noodly Self is it "transformative"?
That someone got paid for this....RAWRGFRAGLEBALRGERG....
Re: Nobody Cares
Absolutely! NetApp offer you the possibility of just adding more shelves to solve any problem for any reason! Forget your archaic conceptualization of "value for dollar" or "storage that is suited to the needs of the customer". Just add a shelf and keep adding shelves until your datacenter's primary workload is ONTAP, with some other things that are an excuse for ONTAP to be deployed.
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was hard. It is the one part of criminal compromise that requires the most orthogonal thinking and the part of the operation where you are most vulnerable to detection.
I also am not about to write an article explaining how to solve the one truly hard problem in criminal data exfiltration. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Re: "exciting as careers in professions like the law"
"the lawyers I know are hard-working, clever people who can wrap their minds around the many nuanced approaches that the law has developed to very complex problems"
Never met a lawyer like that. All the lawyers I know are pretty cookie-cutter types that push paper, fill our forms, follow patterns and scripts and that's about it. In most ways they resemble bored help desk operators, except that instead of Google or some internal wiki they have some overworked middle-aged woman running around in the back fetching an unending stream of paperwork, doing research and ordering around younger women to do even more research.
These lawyers find creative approaches to absolutely fuck all. Their purpose in life is to tell everyone how screwed they are and that there is absolutely nothing that they can do to help themselves. The law wasn't designed to work in their favour and it never will.
They can - and do - bill unbelievable fuckpiles for their work. They get away with it because the law mandates that all sorts of interactions with government, other companies, etc require a lawyer to be involved.
Like accountants, they have no requirement to innovate or even think, because they have engineered a system that requires everyone to use their "services" regardless of need.
Now, admittedly, the overwhelming majority of my interaction with lawyers is civil issues, not criminal. Perhaps these "hard-working, clever people" end up in criminal law over here. I don't know.
I do know that in Canada the lawyers I've had the misfortune of dealing with are overpaid and underworked. They care so little about their jobs that even when you are physically in a room with them they aren't really there.
Unlike systems administrators this isn't because they're dead inside. It's because the life they live outside the confines of their ridiculously expensive offices is so much more exciting than whatever you're bothering them with that they'd rather relive it in their own memories than deal with whatever issue you've got to be dealt with.
I want some of those hard-working, clever lawyers. Maybe if we had some the little guy would win once in a while on this miserable continent. Maybe if that happened once in a while it would stop being such a corrupt, awful place.
- ← Prev
- Next →