In America they call bribes "tips", government workers are not allowed to accept tips, however failing to tip a waiter will get you a spit burger. In India you need to tip every clerk and mail boy in the paper handling chain if you want your government paperwork to move. In Nigeria they put you in an interview room at the airport and wait until you figure out how much they want.

The truth is that many firms simply don't have the staff and budget needed to support an internal SOC. They also don't have the budget for an MSSP. With that, Mike Rothman of Securosis noted that these firms are "trapped on the hamster wheel of pain, reacting without sufficient visibility, but without time to invest in gaining that much-needed visibility into threats without diving deep into raw log files".

In my experience it is not the budget but the politics.

Is your company's security worth the expense of an additional tech? Or are office politics the reason you cannot get an additional tech?

Does whomever is in charge of your technology have the authority to say "no" to requests from other departments? And the political capital to make it stick?

I've seen too many examples of companies "suffering" from the problems their own decisions/environment created.

Retrofitting security is not the answer.

If they can physically do that, then you have a problem. I hear even Windows comes with IPSEC, maybe you could do something about that.

Sure you can, just use an OTG Y-Cable.

Hmmm... *skims summary* I know, let's talk systemd!

I'm gonna insert my reply to an earlier comment of yours here to save me time and space, and because it's a good preface to my reply to this comment anyway:

No, these dodges should not exist.

Yes, you have this part right.

And now, my reply to this comment:

No, you have this badly wrong. If you make corporations pay their taxes, then the costs are passed down to the consumers of their products. But if you don't, then the costs are passed down to every citizen.

I think you have to give basically all of the credit to the people who do the interfaces. That's the only place where Apple ever seems to have a clear advantage, the very early G5 era aside.

I'm not a Zuck fanboi. I actually feel like Facebook is as invasive as the NSA, datamining your every word. I'm very careful with what I put on there; little that isn't already in my public LinkedIn profile.

However, the situation with Turkey isn't as cut and dried as some people want to make it out. Is Zuckerberg being two-faced, saying one thing and doing another? Not necessarily. He can have a strong opinion that censorship is wrong, at the same time being FORCED to do it (to the minimum extent possible) by local laws. If you were to ask him how he feels about this, he would tell you that it really sucks.

Facebook has two options with regard to Turkey. They can either pull out entirely, or they can obey shitty laws. For one thing, they ARE a business, and nobody has ever tried to claim that they're especially benevolent. The users are the product, and we that use Facebook accept that. So it makes sense for them to maintain a revenue stream from Turkish people. Secondly, remaining in Turkey and censoring a few things is better for free exchange of ideas in general than pulling out and effectively censoring EVERYTHING. Facebook is a platform for free exchange of ideas in the extreme. Your personal information and everything you say are spewed to the world whether you want it or not. So in spite of the privacy concerns, Facebook's presence is nevertheless a force for freedom.

Nicely done. That kind of self-loathing crap is always irritating to come across.

I never once said anything about myself. You may wish to examine your biases, the errors in interpretation they cause and whether these errors make you significantly less effective at achieving whatever goals you have.

Unless its using binary encryption or codec bits, it should be possible to just modify the browser code (of Chromium, Firefox or whatever) to save the video file as it gets passed to the video decoder code.

First, us humans prefer killing each other to science. This is a proven fact.

Really? How did the arrangements for that experience go? Subject gets to choose between a test tube or a bound assistant and a (hopefully fake) knife?

Second, humanity did not go from Horses to Nukes, a very very small percent of the population did it, those geniuses have everyone else standing on their coat-tails.

A small part of the population did experiments on uranium, while the rest mined that uranium, enriched it, built the roads that carried it from the mine to the lab, etc. Accusing a tailor of riding on the coattails he made is rather absurd.

The next leap will be by a very small group that is significantly more enlightened than the rest of the 99.95% of the population. If those people are benevolent, then everyone enjoys the fruits. If they are not....... Well, things can go very differently.

The invention to trigger the next leap will be by some group that is supported by others, allowing them to focus on something besides where their next meal will come from. After it has been made, it will be turned into something actually usable by other people, manufactured by yet others, distributed by yet other people along communication and transfer infrastructure built by, you guessed it, other people...

Heroic fantasies are just that: fantasies.

WE do not glorify learning, but instead glorify morons that can carry a ball, or can sing a tune. And we Vilify in society those that do love learning and are very smart.

People respect people who can provide something useful, be it entertainment, a focus for a cultural bonding event, or a cure for cancer. If you aren't respected as much as you think you deserve, it's usually because you aren't doing anything to earn it. Merely being smart and learned is no more worthy of respect than being richr; it's what you're doing with it that earns - or doesn't - the respect.

Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. And if an advanced civilization stumbled across us, they would probably wipe us out to make the rest of the universe safer. We as a species love to hate others, we love murder, war, and control. WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.

Humans, in general, love thinking they're better than someone else, since that's easier than self-improvement. Sometimes that manifests as merely dismissing the entire species as "riding on the coattails" of a special few ubermenschen, and sometimes the delusion reaches the point of wanting to get rid of some specific group of perceived parasites. Either way, it's bullshit.

ROFL.

What a strawman. Which hypothetical investment banker will take Uber and what happened to his limousine and private driver?