Comment Perovskite (Score 1) 87
Surely I'm not the only one that did a double take when I read that as "pervo-skite"...
Not at every entry point, security should be a serious consideration on every device. Work on the assumption that everything is directly exposed to the internet and start from there. Trying to only monitor the entry points is the problem, if anything makes it past your entry points then it could have free reign over everything inside.
When I said "entry point", I didn't mean the perimeter. I meant at every single connection to the network... the RJ45 you plug into in your cube, the wireless AP you connect to with your laptop or smartphone, the vNIC in your virtual server, etc.
Personally I think BYOD is a disaster waiting to happen, but whatever.
If you don't trust any device connecting to the network and IF you are able to apply appropriate security inspection to all of the traffic, does BYOD actually matter? From the security perspective, I'm not sure it does. That said, I tend to agree with you from multiple other concerns: IP protection, compliance, backups, support, etc.
My thinking on this is a bit different, and boils down to this principle: There's still a perimeter, but most of the office is outside of the perimeter.
So what do you include in your version of a perimeter?
From a security perspective, Google is right about the notion that your internal corporate network being "safe" is dead. Between all the laptops, tablets, smartphones and very portable USB devices, there really isn't a secure perimeter on your network. Security needs to be applied at each entry point to the network, whether that is wired (internal or external doesn't matter), wireless or virtual.
The summary implied that the need for security devices goes away once you give up the idea of a perimeter, but that isn't the case at all. The form that security comes in may change, but you still need it. Authenticated users connecting via secure tunnels doesn't eliminate the risk of malware, so you still need IPS and anti-malware devices (Fidelis, FireEye, etc.) to keep your protect company assets from valid authenticated users.
If you can't trust any of the devices on your network, then you need to inspect 100% of the traffic entering the network.
In the course of exploring their universe, mathematicians have occasionally stumbled across holes: statements that can be neither proved nor refuted with the nine axioms, collectively called “ZFC,” that serve as the fundamental laws of mathematics. Most mathematicians simply ignore the holes, which lie in abstract realms with few practical or scientific ramifications. But for the stewards of math’s logical underpinnings, their presence raises concerns about the foundations of the entire enterprise.
“How can I stay in any field and continue to prove theorems if the fundamental notions I’m using are problematic?” asks Peter Koellner, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University who specializes in mathematical logic.
To Settle Infinity Dispute, a New Law of Logic is an interesting article in Quanta Magazine exploring the disagreements among mathematicians about the continuum hypothesis.
Who wins in the ever-so-relevant showdown between forcing axioms and the inner-model axiom, "V=ultimate L"?
This is the argument that I'm most sympathetic towards. I agree that extraordinary punishment should require extraordinary proof. Of course, that doesn't address the issues around biased judges, juries or prosecutors.
Because I do believe that there are heinous crimes that death is an appropriate punishment for, I tend to look to fix issues with the justice system in other ways. In particular, you throw the book at corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc. Punish what they did wrong rather than just saying "well, the system can't be perfect so we won't punish anyone".
And yes, I believe that prison is for punishment, not as a time-out from society. Does that mean I think prisoners should be abused? Nope, not at all. But it also doesn't mean that I think we need to be providing cable TV or other luxuries while they are serving their time.
2) The method of execution is cruel.
I don't buy this argument vs. lethal injection
3) Even if the method isn't painful, it is cruel/barbaric to execute someone "regardless" (no matter what they did).
I can respect this argument even if I don't agree with it. I don't share that view, but I can understand it. Unfortunately, most folks I've talked to that make this argument don't seem to apply it as a fundamental value or principle.
4) Execution as a form of punishment is no different than murder
Sorry, but this argument is fundamentally flawed and childish.
5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution.
I don't doubt that it is given the processes and appeals involved with the death penalty. I'm ok with that. It's a practical financial argument, but doesn't really address whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong.
I'm willing to spend more to ensure someone that commits heinous crimes doesn't have a chance to do it again. "Life without parole" isn't a guarantee of that. "Life" doesn't really mean the accused will die in prison. "without parole" doesn't mean that the rules don't change down the road.
If you want to reduce money spent in the penal system, get rid of the war on drugs and you'll flush out an awful lot of the prison population.
How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.
The only way to try to get around it is to play the "not really a human until it is born" game. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets, IMO.
Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases? Or are your principles "flexible" and convenient?
Java is better in areas where you need high performance and scalability
Now I need a new keyboard! Just spit out my Diet Dr. Pepper when I read that... What's your definition of "high performance"???
If you aren't interested in being a contractor, flitting around between jobs constantly is a big warning sign for hiring managers. Why weren't they able to stay in one place very long? Personality issues? Inability to produce? Bored quickly? Jumping at first higher bid?
It's expensive for the business to get someone ramped up only to have them leave after 12-18 months. It doesn't mean I wouldn't hire them, but it would be one more non-trivial hurdle to clear before I'd make an offer.
Probably worth pointing out that I'm coming at this from product development. YMMV for IT jobs or web apps or other types of jobs.
And, if what you want to do is contracting, then this doesn't really matter in the least.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
