People like to joke about how false information added to Wikipedia gets quoted in articles where are then used to justify the information in Wikipedia, but it's actually quite real. It happens amazingly often and no one seems to be taking any real steps to fix the problem. If you go to any article and start looking through the sources you'll find that most of the sources either provide nothing to back up their information, obviously quoted it from Wikipedia in the first place, or actually have the information in such a context that it contradicts what the Wikipedia article is saying.

New cyber security tool doesn't work!

Impossible. That would imply that Bitcoin had credibility to begin with.

>He was not hired.

Oh yes he was, he just wasn't hired at *your* company. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that his "resume" got him a job at another company because their software ranked him at the top for having "more qualifications" than any other applicant.

Your wife is an idiot. She's selecting people who are able to find some antiquated piece of technology and are willing to put up with an employer that implements stupid rules. Most competent people will go apply elsewhere and what you're left with is the bottom of the barrel.

>If I was homeless and had a crack at suing a big pharma company for millions

If you had a crack at suing a big pharma company then you'd have money and therefore probably wouldn't be homeless. Your premise is flawed.

Unless, of course, you think that there are lawyers willing to take on a case against big pharma for no money up front? In which case, your premise is also flawed.

Who? Why, he's the person selling the product that he says everyone needs, of course! After all, he's a salesman, there's no way he would intentionally mislead anyone, right?

Seriously though, this guy is just trying to sell a product by insulting everyone who doesn't buy it. He's coined a derogatory term in order to try and label everyone who doesn't buy his product as being a "server hugger." How about we make our own stupid name and call people like him "airheads"? An airhead is someone who thinks that the cloud is the end-all be-all of IT infrastructure. Airheads ignore the problems inherent with the cloud, dodge the hard questions, and insist that running your own machines is always, without question, a bad thing to do.

Curtis Peterson, you're an airhead.

Not to mention that the $5 bolt will be made in America whereas the $0.30 bolt will be made in China. Buying the American bolt will prevent sending even more money overseas. And the $5 bolt is guaranteed not to have hidden microphones or intelligence-gathering equipment in it whereas the $0.30 bolt might be designed to fail when someone, who isn't the US government, wants it to.

People say "OMG! I can't believe that the government has 400 pages of regulations for something as simple as a bolt!" but if you actually read those regulations then they make a lot of sense. They cover the specifications to which the bolt will be designed, how the bolts will be delivered, how many will be delivered in what time frame, how many must be on hand, how quickly a rush order must be fulfilled, how they will be tested for quality, how they will be secured to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing them (this doesn't really apply to bolts, but it does to a lot of sensitive computing and communications equipment), etc. This is stuff that couldn't matter less if you just need a box of bolts to build a tool shed in your back yard, but can make all the difference in the world when you're building a couple thousand fighter jets.

It's not just a matter of secrecy, it's a matter of absolute reliability. Student projects are unacceptable because there is no way in hell a student project can be tested and reviewed to the extent necessary for use in such an application. These things absolutely, positively, have to work every single time with zero problems. There's no time for troubleshooting when you have to launch a retaliatory attack after detecting the enemy (whoever it might be) launching their missiles at you.

>Make the training mandatory, but unobstructive

That's not possible. If it's mandatory then it's obstructing something, period.

Not to mention that most pen tests stop the very second even a single vulnerability is found. Some tester might drop a bunch of flash drives in the parking lot, wait for an employee to take one inside, and then conclude that they've penetrated the building and that the test is finished. They never find the fact that you could clone someone's badge from 50 feet away, or that the network ports in the public lobby aren't VLANed separately from the network ports in the high-security areas, or...

The old ones use a metal strip that melts in order to accomplish the same thing.

Agreed. Fire alarms are not things that should be designed by any Tom, Dick, or Harry that wants to dabble in home automation. These are devices in which failure can cause people to fucking die. The folks over a Nest should issue a complete recall of every single one of their fire alarms, destroy them, and replace them with normal fire alarms from any real fire protection vendor. But we all know that won't happen because it would cut into their profit margin and they'd be forced to admit that they aren't really qualified to be working in real-stakes industries like fire protection.

The feature in question apparently deactivates the alarm if you wave your hand anywhere from 2 to 8 feet beneath the unit. How they possibly thought that this wouldn't be accidentally triggered is beyond me. Something tells me that they didn't actually do very much QA at all.

Get your logic out of here! I want to blindly hate the government and if the only way I can do it is by misinterpreting everything in order to push a narrative of inefficiency then so be it!