I don't think its terribly unreasonable to postulate that a sufficiently advanced society may be world bound and following their bliss.

A sufficiently advanced society may actually have come to the realization that FTL travel/communication is impossible and that travelling to the nearest inhabited planet would be a centuries long one way expedition with little or no return on investment. So, if an advanced civilization figures out that they are forever trapped in a single solar system, with one or two habitable planets... why would they keep wasting effort on something they know is impossible? If you solve the problems on your planet and you know you'll never leave your planet... then why wouldn't you pursue pleasure instead?

Imagine if our society evolved beyond the primitive philosophies of religions, so we no longer had people worrying about what the invisible guy in the sky wanted. Imagine if we found cheap energy, ways to reduce scarcity etc. and assume that we also evolved beyond some of our basic primate programming of alpha and territorial dominance. In such a society, following one's bliss may well be the most logical choice.

The example provided here is a very high level Slashdot comment ;-) There are several different risk models that can be used, either qualitative or quantitative. The right model depends heavily on the type of organization you're working with.

The one I mentioned is from the InfoSec Handbook. Others cover the value of the asset instead of Impact (Threat x Vulnerability x Asset) and some include accounting for mitigation and countermeasures like TIK (threat*vulnerability/countermeasure * Impact or Asset). I've worked for companies that have their own internal models, companies that want very complex models and companies that use very simple models which every variable is ranked 1 - 5 (1&2 Low, 3&4 Medium, 5 High).

The core thing here is not the specific model. As long as a consistent model is used to rank vulnerabilities and threats and can define a useful value for determining the cost of the event versus the cost of the protection method, then its useful (and may be sufficient, depending on the situation).

There are lots of different risks that must be considered when securing a network or system. In my many years of securiy architecture, I've found it make the most sense to create a risk assessment.

Threat x Vulnerability x Impact = Risk

Once you have defined the risks, you can define the best protection method to reduce each risk.

Application firewalls may not be the best protection method depending on the rest of your network security controls. If you have strong network firewalls and every device that connects to the network must be authenticated (and scanned for viruses) before its given an IP address, an application firewall may not reduce much risk. If it doesn't reduce much risk, it may not be necessary.

In business, security is like insurance. You have to justify how much to spend, based on how it will protect us if something bad happens. Further, you have to make sure that whatever the security control is, it doesn't interfere with what the business needs to function. If the database cannot function with a firewall, a firewall is not the best protection method and other options should be considered (Network Intrusion Prevention systems, Data Protection [encryption/tokenization/hashing], Anti-Virus, File Integrity Monitoring, etc). There are many tools available to security professionals today. A firewall is a good tool, but not the only tool... depending on the situation, it may not even be the right tool.

I grew up in the country in Ohio, lived in Columbus and NYC for awhile, moved to a fishing village in Turkey for a couple years and currently live in the countryside in the UK. Politically, I don't agree with either side of the American political false dichotomy (aka the Two Man Con).

What I do understand, however, is that looking at personal observations or eyewitness testimony is a really bad way to do science, criminal investigation or any sort of objective work. Individuals process objective data through the neurological system, which includes lots and lots of personal beliefs, bias and filters. Climate models may be wrong (I am not a scientist), but personal observation from "country folk" is certainly no more reliable and likely less so... particularly if they are part of a political party which denies global climate change as part of its tribal identifier.

See Also the 23 Enigma or the Law of Fives.

Wow... way to make us feel old :P

Dunno what you're playing, but in two nights of play with the expansion my level 62 Monk has picked up a huge number of crazy items and they all stacked beautifully. My wife's Barbarian had the same experience. Maybe its because we get the team bonus for playing together, I dunno.

I agree. I've done quite a bit of living abroad and every country has some advantages and disadvantages. American can't even really claim the 'most free' country... it's all relative and depends heavily on the values of the culture.

Wait a second... a hippie from the 60's that's geeky enough to post on /.? Any girl in your bed should have been suspect!!!! ;-)

I live in a small village, its considered one of the most conservative villages in the Aegean region. The Anatolian region has 'more conservative' people, but they are still very tolerant. For the most part, from my local experience and in my travels around the country, I find that a majority are tolerant people. There are exceptions, in the southeast (near Iraq/Sryian borders) there are still honor killings, for example. However, this country tends to almost worship Ataturk and Ataturk's vision was of a tolerant, secular nation.

There are extremists, but that's far from the majority. even the people that have continually voted for AKP have been moderates, AKP did a lot of good things when coming to power and have only slowly begun to exert more and more authoritarian control... even so, its still tolerant. No one tries to force you to be Muslim, or to wear conservative dress or not drink. The government doesn't tolerate dissent, but it never has under any administration since it became a Republic. Even Ataturk wasn't very tolerant of people that wanted to backslide into a religious/ottoman style system.

The Turkish people just don't have a party that rides the middle... its either religious conservatives, a military coup or extreme secularism/nationalism. Its sad, because the people are really fantastic.

I love the people of this country more and more as I live here. The protests gripping the country now, are really because their fellow countrymen were attacked unjustly (and a litany of other complaints have found a voice in the protests). Here, the language as spoken almost forces a familial connection. People your age are Brother, older men are Uncle, older women are Mother or Grandmother... even if you don't know them. If there's any truth to the Sapier- Worf Hypothesis, the language seems to have a direct impact on how these people feel about each other (or vice versa).

I live in Turkey currently (American living abroad) and its not at all an "Islamic" country. The people are very tolerant of pretty much everything and most (not all) of the Muslims are extremely liberal/secular when compared to many other Islamic social groups. For example, I've seen Imam's, Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis sharing coffee and conversation with each other and a couple of gay men that had nowhere else to sit in the coffee house. Maybe 20% of the women in my area wear headscarves, no burkas or anything like that... and they'll happily have conversations with women in mini skirts and bikinis (hey its a beach town :) ). Most of the Turks drink alcohol, they have some good beers and almost everyone drinks raki (anise liquor). When the mosque calls for prayers, most of the Muslims around here go about their daily life. Many don't ever attend Mosque.

That being said the AKParty acts much like the GOP in the US. They stay in power because there is a strong Anatolian middle class of conservatives and the AKP constantly make noises to maintain their support. A few months ago they made a lot of noise about outlawing abortion, nothing came of it, but the AKP poll numbers went up. The same for the recent anti-alcohol law... "no shop sales after 10 PM and before 6 AM" but you can still go to restaurants and bars with no problem until 5 AM or whenever they finally close.

While the CHP (the left wing, secularist) party is setting itsself up as the 'secular' alternative to the AKP... they tend to be ultra nationalists. The military has, more than once overthrown the government via a coup and taken control of the country, because the military didn't like the way the government was acting. The CHP tend to be Kemalists (following Ataturks views), but they have a pretty poor track record with other kinds of human rights. Kurds, for example, were treated worse under the CHP and military lead governments than under the AKP. The CHP would have no problem jailing people for speaking against Ataturk or Turkey... and actually kicked an author out of the country for writing a book that included support for the claim that the Ottomans in the beginning off the 20th century were responsible for the Armenian genocide (the nationalist position is that it was a war and lots of people on both sides died).

For some the AKP has provided more freedom. For example, until recently, women were not allowed to wear the headscarf in public institutions (schools, colleges, etc.) and women who kept the headscarf had many fewer job options.

Basically the situation in Turkey is a question of balancing extremism on both sides of governance with the more moderate public. There is no simple answer.

I distrust government quite a bit... However, I don't ask questions about the Bilderburgers, or the Masons or the Priory of Scion or Bohemian Grove.

Or Obama's secret Muslim/Kenyan birth... or 9/11 being a secret government conspiracy.

I find MSNBC to be as unwatchable as Fox, personally. However, FOX is far more directly involved in political gaming than MSNBC.

FTR - I tend to be a rational anarchist in the sense used by Heinlein.

There lies a large difference between his personal political philosophy, which he did not compromise and his actions as a publicly elected figure.

That is, he might have campaigned heavily against Nationalized Healthcare... but once the people voted a pro-healthcare administration and congress in... he would have worked to find a compromise, giving what he felt he had to, and taking where he thought he could. A half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.

Jefferson's view of government was from the people. As he once said, the Revolution had happened in the minds of the people long before it was a reality. The same for his party and election... it came from the people. His statement that the tree of liberty had to be watered with blood was directed to the People rising up if the government ignored the People.

Consider though now and here. President Obama campaigned heavily on health care. The democrats campaigned heavily on health care. Almost every poll shows that the Majority WANT some kind of health care reform. The Will of the People beats the philosophy of the politician... if you learn nothing else from Jefferson you should learn that. I have little doubt that while he would have disliked the concept, he would have worked hard to find some kind of compromise, rather than simply stand in opposition and defy the electorate. He would have found a half a loaf of bread in that bill, rather than standing there with empty hands.

Compared to the current crop of politicians... well none of them deserve to sit in the same building as many of the historical figures that once worked there. :(

Yeah, I saw some of that... then I saw one of his bits on national healthcare.

In the former, he seemed mildly upset. In the latter, he seemed about ready to explode. To me, that seems like some seriously confused priorities.

Either that, or he just plays to his audience and doesn't give a shit either way, as long as he makes money...

Or, at least, thats how it appears to me.