Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 108
Probably. But do they know that? And the more sanctions the US imposes, the less damaging this will be to them.
Probably. But do they know that? And the more sanctions the US imposes, the less damaging this will be to them.
Agreed. But I think those "kill-switches" will be too slow. They are more there to give the politicos an illusion of control.
Thanks, but it really is not that great an insight
Because that is what a 6-day week does. Stupid.
My current manager is a keeper, though.
I have met a few of those but not many. They understand that their main job is to allow those doing the actual work to work and to get them what they need to do that work and shield them from as much BS as they can.
You are just trying to apologizing things that cannot be apologized. A brief look at where attackers got in for the last few years nicely shows how utterly bogus your "argument" (which is basically just FUD) is.
So, lets see:
Not everyone is a cybersecurity expert.
Sure. That is why you _hire_ them. Not everybody is a fire-safety expert either, but do you see buildings burning down left and right?
When known, the full scope of threats may not be realized.
So doing nothing is the way to go? Once you actually have hired those experts, that stops. You know, because actual experts keep up with the threat landscape.
When the full scope is known, the budget may not exist to mitigate the threats, particularly in government.
Making that budget available is non-optional. Either have it or cease IT operations. In regulated environments, it is already handled like this. Looking at the damage done, that is the only sane way to do it, because if your IT security sucks, you will sooner or later have to find a much _larger_ budget to recover from the damage.
When the full threat is known, and the budget exists, the mitigation available may effectively eliminate the service under threat.
That is just nonsense. If the service is under threat you either fix it or you stop running it. If you continue running it, the attackers will stop if for you, at much greater cost to you. Incidentally, almost everything can be secured. It just costs money and may be inconvenient. In that case, start cleaning up your technological debt.
Well, I guess we need stronger regulation and personal penalties for those that continue to screw it up. The time for bogus apologies (like yours) is over.
Well, it is pretty clear that China would also massively lose in any such scenario. But accidents and political changes do happen and and hence even this "light" form of MAD is simply insane.
Q: How on earth did you arrive at that question? Do you have a reading dysfunctionality?
The only reason China has not brought the US economy to a standstill is because so far they did not want to. This is not because Chinese hackers are so great. This is because US infrastructure, industrial and government IT Security is so bad. Not that the rest of the world is much better.
And why have people been sleeping and ignoring the threat for about a decade now or longer? Simple: Greed. IT Security costs money. Nothing happens to the CEO that rather has a fat bonus than decent IT Security.
I agree to all of that. For some reason, many people see programming as something an average janitor can do. Not so. Programming is full-custom engineering in a dynamic, complex and evolving field. To be good at it takes a lot of education, talent and experience.
Given that frameworks sometimes have a pretty short lifetime and languages go out of fashion....
Seems about accurate.
how does an six- to nine-month school cost 30K?
now an full collage can cost more and the loans are harder to get out of.
Private schools often cost that much or more. It's why Catholic private schools are an extremely popular option because their costs are usually 1/10th of what a normal private school costs.
They _charge_ for the opportunity to indoctrinate your kids?
In this case, it is more language getting corrupted. There are already the first attempts to break the term "AGI" as well and make it mean no more than what used to be called "automation". Some assholes wanting to sell things and many idiots that do not understand that words have meaning and need to be reasonably stable in their meaning to remain useful.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though.
No sign of anybody proving you right either. The claim that AGI is even possible is an extraordinary one at this time, with not even simple evidence available. No, the physicist belief system does not count as "evidence". What would count is a credible theory, but all we have is automated deduction and that gets bogged down in complexity so fast it is not useful for any general applications as it just takes too long to deduce anything. In theory it could though, but the physical limitations of this universe restrict it to performance so far below an average (i.e. "pretty dumb") human, it is not a viable AGI candidate technology.
Having followed ML research for something like 40 years now, I do not think we are even remotely close to AGI.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
