And the reason is
Once we switched to robots for manufacturing it became a lot more difficult. A robot can reach where a person cannot.
Which means you save a lot of "wasted" space and materials
The threat of punishment sure keeps me paying my taxes...
I'll say that it is not because you worry that you will be executed but that you will lose your possessions / job / freedom. Once you've bought into the system then the system has ways to keep you invested.
Once you leave the system then the punishments don't matter.
Either someone doing something "wrong" is going to change their behavior or they are not.
Yeah. Although I see it as whether they have the option to join the system again. If they're paying a mortgage and putting their kids through school then they have an interest in following the rules.
If not, then kill them, they aren't worth the food and air used to keep them alive.
The problem with that approach is that the system is run by people. And those people are flawed.
Convicts who are on death row are being released because of DNA evidence.
http://codysinvestigations.com/NorCalPrivateInvestigatorBlog/corrupt-justice-texas-state-bar-seeks-to-discipline-prosecutor-for-concealing-evidence-in-wrongful-conviction-of-michael-morton/
And it is even worse if you are a minority.
You can (even in uniform) refuse an "unlawful" order, according to the UCMJ.
Yes. You will have to justify it though.
Anyway, back to the previous comment:
there's a magical difference between sworn and unsworn.
It's not magical. It's "military" and "civilian". If you're military then the UCMJ replaces the civilian laws.
if they ask a hacker to create a virus
....
The military does not create the weapons that it uses. It buys them from civilians. The M-16? Parts made by Mattel. The same company that makes Barbie dolls. So a soldier would probably NOT be writing that virus. It would be a civilian contractor or other government agency (NSA).
I think the concept here has gotten lost.
The problem is that if your INITIAL sorting is based upon who can pass Basic Training and such, you will probably exclude people with more valuable skills.
There is nothing stopping the Army from creating a new field and assigning some lieutenants to it. Those lieutenants are the ones that "pull the trigger".
But the network scans, evaluations, compromises and such can all be done by GS contractors. The lieutenants would be the equivalent of "script kiddies" at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)
But to have a whole group of 'different' Army folks - not such a good idea.
100% agreement.
If they are NOT going to be deployed then hire them as GS whatever.
If they ARE going to be deployed to a situation where they can be shot then they need combat training.
It's not so much the VPN technology as it is the failure to correctly implement and secure it.
TFA leaves the real content until the end of the article:
The data is then replayed from the repositories through a set of attack scripts, which use sets of preshared keys (PSKs) harvested from sources such as exploited routers and stored in a key database
...
So if the NSA wants to "crack" your VPN session they first record it (we know how they do that) then they try to brute force that recording using what is, essentially, a dictionary attack.
TFA seems more entranced by the cutesy names than by the technology.
Douglas Adams said it best:
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
The WSJ's entire premise is based upon the idea that space is small enough that we could search it for other inhabited planets in the time we've been looking.
Space isn't that small.
Space is so big that BILLIONS of years will pass before we even see the light shining from a sun in a different galaxy.
The universe could have 10,000 intelligent species that we will never know about because they are just too far from us.
No, "necessary" entirely misses the point.
No. That is the point.
Users will find a way to do what they desire to do, and they'll find a way to make it easy to do so.
Now think about a bank. Physical access to the money is controlled and verified and audited.
Employees at a bank are NOT allowed to do whatever is easier for them. They do NOT prop open the secure doors.
If they do so, they are fired.
So why would Facebook be any different? Because people can SEE when the doors to the money are propped open. But they cannot SEE the network access.
You are wrong.
[Difficulty of unauthorized access] / [Difficulty of authorized access]
I would change that second part to
"necessary access"
. I'll explain in a moment.
Making authorized access harder reduces security because people. People will always make it easier fo themselves.
In my experience, the first problem is EGO. There is always some executive who bases his/her EGO on what exemptions he/she can get.
I'm too important NOT to have access to X.
From anywhere.
Along with all my people.
And then other executives have to have the same access because, otherwise, they are not as important. And IT can handle it, right?
So you end up with too many people with too much access. And admin/root access to their machines. That they also use for non-work related activities because why shouldn't I have iTunes on my work laptop?
So you end up with 100 people with VPN access to the HR servers and 95 of them don't even know it and 99 of them don't use it. BUT THEY ALL "HAVE" TO HAVE IT AND IT IS AUTHORIZED.
In the world of physical security, the lesson is: "any door along the quickest path between where people work and the smoking area will be propped open - don't even try to fight it, instead make sure that doesn't compromise security".
And with computer security, they bring the open doors with them. Wherever they go. And they are authorized to do so.
But it is not necessary for them to have that authorization.
From the summary:
For driverless cars to work, to decrease congestion, increase safety, reduce lawsuits and lower our insurance premiums everyone would have to be driving one.
Bullshit. Just having the cameras showing that it was the other guy's fault when he hit you should be enough to reduce your premiums. And reduce lawsuits as the insurance companies learn how much video is available.
Congestion will depend upon the specific situation. But since you won't have to focus on it, will it matter as much? And I would expect that the car would call home for the most expeditious route available to it. Accident 1 mile ahead, get off highway at this exit, take these streets, get back on highway after accident
And you should totally lecture them on that point at Thanksgiving or Christmas, so you can be That Guy.
Thanksgiving? The harvest festival? The one that isn't even common to Christians? Is that the Thanksgiving that you're talking about?
Are you going to bring up the 4th of July next?
I think you're starting with the assumption that it is important for a religious person to know what exactly, objectively happened, rather then what the internal and psychological meaning of something in their religious text is.
No. Christmas is NOT in the Bible.
The various church's leaders decided that the CELEBRATION would be held on certain days. And those days were not all the same. They still are not.
This is more like Alice having her party on Saturday instead of her actual birth-date. And Bob being offended that SATURDAY is not exclusive to Alice's BIRTH-DATE.
And then people defending Bob's right to be offended because his FEELINGS should supersede the facts.
Yes, and you could also inform someone on their birthday that theres actually nothing special about the day astronomically and that they're quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
1. Not on their birthday. On the day of the party (which is specifically NOT their birthday).
2. astronomically? No one I know believes that their birthday (or the party) is astronomically significant. Do you?
3. All my friends understand that they ARE "insignificant in the grand scheme of things." They are only significant to their friends and family. Which is why we're having the party. Do you believe that you have some significance "in the grand scheme of things"?
4. Pointing out that Alice did X does NOT mean that Bob did NOT do Y. Newton's achievements do not invalidate Jesus' achievements.
5. Jesus does not seem to have been offended by that tweet. Just people who do not understand these points.
It doesn't matter if he's "right", what matters is the consequence of his actions, and that is turning religious people away from science further while making his "pro-science" (a ridiculous term) fans more, well, fanatical.
If stating a fact annoys a fanatic then that is the fanatic's problem.
Particularly when the religious fanatic in question does not understand the specifics of their own religion.
I'm sure that he has done more with that one tweet to raise awareness that Christmas is the CELEBRATION of the birth of Jesus and NOT the actual birth of Jesus (which was not recorded).
And if there are adults who cannot emotionally deal with that fact then fuck them.
My wife was offended, and she's not even Christian.
Why was she offended?
It isn't even the supposed birthday of Jesus.
It's the day that the party is held.
So what was offensive to your wife about it?
On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642
Happiness is twin floppies.
