I'm not sure about how that was decided, but I will note that an older definition of the word was "A temporary bed made from [straw] bedding arranged on the floor, especially for a child". Perhaps they envisioned the wooden frames as temporary beds for products to rest on?

It's too bad the creator had to ruin it by opening his mouth. Any 'Art' that makes it's statement with a bunch of words next to it generally isn't art. It's glued together junk that's not aesthetically appealing. This guy actually made something neat and arguably pretty, then made sure we all knew his talents started with, and ended with, this sort of work.

Not all corporate IT security is a joke. Some of it you don't hear news stories about.

Well, OK, but some of it actually is pretty good.

1) Yes, Anonymous is this stupid. It's an unorganized group of small groups of varying capabilities and talents. Some are only talented at mouthing off stupidly.

2) If Sony is pretending to be Anonymous, they are doing it anonymously, and therefore not doing it under false pretenses.

If this was a targeted attack, then forbidding outbound connections isn't sufficient. That keeps data from being transmitted out, but it doesn't keep malignent distorters from operating. Randomly changing a few bits every once in awhile could do quite a bit of damage, even invalidating backups, and be quite difficult to detect.

More to the point, in a case like this you need multiple nested perimeters. The media *is* the value of the company, so that should be stored on read only media, in multiple copies at different (secure) locations. Possibly encrypted, but then you need a somewhat similar protection for the keys.

Access to the media doesn't need to be available to anyone whose job doesn't involve editing it. So that another perimeter separate from that of the main company. If some management honcho says that he needs access, give him read only access. If he demands read/write access, have him work on a copy.

And, yes, this isn't perfect. Perfection is not available, so you nest near perfection. Now within each perimeter you also need those intrusion detection mechanisms you were talking about, but that doesn't suffice. Too much can happen too quickly.

It's not that simple. Your proposal is rather like people who want to choose which parts of the Federal Government their taxes fund. (Not that that's totally unreasonable, but implementation would be horrendous, and could be expected to increase the costs of most services.)

What do you mean "held accountable"? When was the last time a major political figure was prosecuted for his crimes, rather than becaus his opponents found prosecution a convenient stick? The last time I can think of is Nixon, and I'm not certain about that. (I don't consider sex with consenting women that you aren't married to to be a crime. So don't bring up Clinton. That was clearly political action rather than prosecution.)

He's saying that the phrasing of the headline reveals a bias in the submission. Perhaps he's right. (I don't watch either Dish or Fox, and I haven't followed their dispute, so this is based purely on his argument and your response...with some guidance from other posts both in this story and in past stories.)

It's a reasonable argument whether or not its true in this particular case.

The problem is that if you go back to when unions were relatively powerful, the ones who were powerful were the management of the unions. And they often didn't do well by their members. (Other times they did, but ran afoul of some law or other, some times a reasonable one.)

Centers of power tend to become corrupt, because corrupt people are attracted to them more strongly than those who are not corrupt.

It has been well known that all Corporate IT security is a complete joke. CIO refuses to spend the money on it, COO refuses to make users actually follow real security procedures, and the CFO loves the "it wont happen to us" line that means they will not have to actually spend money on real IT security.

This is not new, I'm just glad that it's happening in a very public way so that maybe the worthless executives out there will actually listen to their IT experts about the fact that we NEED to spend the money to try and keep the bad guys out.

The line of customers to the $50 battery-swap option will definitely become less steady, yes. Unless you think that there aren't any people who, given the option, would choose to keep the $50 rather than spend it? Granted, these are Tesla drivers we're talking about here, but still ;^)

Okay... next question is: how much would it cost to hire the necessary people to do what was done to Sony? I'm guessing that would be in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly up to a million?

Given the amount of money North Korea spends on nuclear weapons development, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't or couldn't spend a relatively small amount on this.

The old guy there was trying to get internet to the island and they threw him in jail. Let's start with forcing the Cuban Government to take bi-polar meds first?

I can't quite see why this is being made out to be such a scandal. So she asked a colleague if a black guy might be interested in films starring black characters. Okay, it's a bit naive, but scandalous? Really?

It's not like she said anything insensitive to Obama; she merely asked a colleague for advice about how to act appropriately. I'd think that recognizing your ignorance in advance and correcting it would be preferable to ignoring it and then blurting out something stupid/embarrassing to the POTUS.

I'm probably missing some critical detail, but to me it seems like the only thing she's guilty of is not having enough experience interacting with black people in a social context. That's a weakness, to be sure, but if it's a sin then it's a sin that a lot of other people are also guilty of. I think this is a pretty good example of why people are so reluctant to enter any discussion about race -- anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.