Re: Job security
Old developers' joke:
"99 bugs in code that's released
99 bugs in the code that's released
take one out
patch it around
120 bugs in the code that's released"
251 posts • joined 15 Dec 2010
than to stream. When the censors (spotify, apple, google, amazon, facebook, or government) come for the streams, they can't as readily destroy my CDs or MP3s. The flag represents another way to get prohibited/censored music.
El Reg, thanks for the Nick Cave tip. Great track. I think I'll fire up some (German) BPjM-sanctioned Die Ärzte or maybe some 2 Live Crew after that.
I wonder how insurance companies view claims made by people who deliberately chose to allow strangers into their homes. I haven't read my homeowner's policy in awhile, but I bet my insurer would try to find a way to deny a claim based on some clause in there they feel covers this. Negligence of some sort, I'd wager.
Not there's any fucking way I'd put such a lock on my house in the first place.
I wouldn't call myself an apple apologist, but Apple did shift architecture. Additionally, the App Store was full of a staggering amount of apps which users were warned for years wouldn't work on iOS 11 without update. And it was full of a lot of shit whose ignominious departure is welcome. I have two complaints: iTunes update preventing iOS app and ringtone management and the end of application backup on a computer.
That Apple forgot to update or test their own application with their own OS is funny.
You CAN turn Wifi and Bluetooth off in iOS 11. What you CAN'T do anymore is turn them off from Control Center. Those buttons that from iOS 7 to iOS 10 turned off the antennas now only disconnect them. I raised it as an issue in every version of the public beta and was informed that it is by design, not a bug. I have not upgraded to iOS 11 on my phone as a result.
Slight price correction: the 256GB iPhone 8 is actually the slightly-less-staggering £849, not £949, unless you meant the Plus.
As to the chicken impersonation, that was surreal. I can't imagine the target market for animated puppies and chickens overlaps much with the set of people who are going to drop four figures (£ or $) for a phone. I'm probably wrong.
I am a fan of Mr Dinklage's work, but the much of the copy sounds like it belongs as examples in the Ig-Nobel-prize winning paper "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit".
I've stopped using Google on my phones/tablets now. I use DDG and, when the results are not sufficient, the !g flag to search google. Since using DDG to do Google searches, I don't get AMP results. This data point does not a proof make, but perhaps others have similar results.
"What a perfect example of government's heavy influence over the attitudes of the masses. Probably all that government-run early school training. Trust Big Daddy government, kiddies, it's for your own good!"
Hardly. I'm a believer in limited government, but I think the US government should do the things it's tasked to do by the people through the Constitution. I don't want the government to have sole responsibility for my personal cyber-security any more than I intend for the government to provide all of my physical security. Just as while I don't want or need to see tanks protecting my cities directly, I know that if $ENEMY attacks my city or family, there are people and tools equipped to respond with appropriate fury. What I DO want is the knowledge that the people tasked with those duties have the skills and experience to do them. I have no doubt that General Mattis is well-suited to be an outstanding SecDef; his record as a warrior monk speaks for itself. I have significant doubt that Rudy is suited to the task of advising the President on protecting government networks and whatever else fits under "White House Cyber Security Advisor". His company's website is part of his advertisement of capabilities. If it's less secure than my blog, he shouldn't do the job that the President-elect has asked him to do.
As to the question you asked initially, yes, I think the government has a duty to provide some modicum of cyber security. They definitely should protect their own networks. In fact, there's an agency whose putative purpose is just that already. (Or maybe there's No Such Agency.) They've been too busy spying on everyone to prevent someone from stealing all of the personnel records from the OPM, for example. Giuliani's CV is that of a good federal prosecutor, a mediocre mayor who was cast into the national spotlight because of 9/11, and then a few consulting gigs. None of that indicates he has the skills necessary to the task asked.
Quoting Big John: "But please, someone tell me when it became the government's job to enhance the nation's civilian cyber security?"
I guess it depends on how broadly one interprets "provide for the common defence", which is one of the explicit goals in creating the framework for the US federal government. If that phrase from the Preamble to the Constitution includes nation's cyber security, then 1789.
"If everyone donated just the price of that cup of coffee in your hands right now, yes, just £2, we could shine a beacon of knowledge on this historic city. Wikipedia Central, where there will be no ads, we'll just get by on the generosity of small donors. It's easy to ignore this message; most people do. But I hope you'll take one minute to think about how useful Wikipedia is in your life. Keep it Central. Thank you - Jimmy Wales"
During the Manning proceedings, there were articles suggesting the US was preparing charges against Mr Assange related to conspiracy to disseminate classified materials or even violating the Espionage Act. The wording of the pardon of Richard Nixon that I quoted above could conceivably be used in a pardon of Assange, if Mr Obama or Mr Trump were to choose to issue one. Whether it is, in fact, a crime for a journalistic entity (which is what Wikileaks call themselves) to publish classified documents is probably unlikely. Judith Miller was held in contempt for not identifying her source for classified information, not the information itself. Nor were the journalists who published the Pentagon Papers or the Snowden disclosures prosecuted. The "may have committed or taken part in" would cover such a circumstance where the specific crime is unclear.
The Presidential pardon does not require the pardoned to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, before a pardon is issued. Here are two recent examples. Jimmy Carter pardoned all those who disregarded conscription into service for the Vietnam War, some of whom had been charged and convicted, many not charged. His predecessor, Gerald Ford, pardoned Richard Nixon for crimes Nixon "has committed or may have committed or taken part in" before Nixon could be charged.
As an interesting aside, "Inflammable" came first (late 16th, early 17th century). "Flammable" came about and gained popularity some ~200 years after inflammable joined the English language because of the confusion about the prefix in- meaning "not" in most cases and meaning "in" or "into" in the case of inflammable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019