He's part of the "system". Therefore, his view is that anyone who isn't directly supporting the "system" is opposing it. Which means you're opposing him and the "good" work that he is doing. You are friendly to the "terrorists".
"Terrorists" in this case being defined as anyone Mark Rowley does not agree with.
Personally, I think that there are far more corrupt cops and corrupt politicians and so on who would abuse their authority than there are terrorists who can attack us.
She's wrong on a few points.
1. It has ALWAYS been about "Reducing Dependence on Human Workers". A person with years of hand-crafting skill is replaced by someone with months of machine-operating skill. And so forth.
2. Machines are NOT as good as she claims at predicting HUMAN behaviour. They're just getting to be better than the average human (who sucks at it).
Now machines at call centers can be used to seamlessly generate spoken responses to customer inquiries, so that a single operator can handle multiple customers all at once.
No. HUMANS can be forced to read off a script but MACHINES suck at anything more complex than "Did you say "yes"".
It all comes down to proper design and the ability to say "NO".
Security cannot be retro-fitted to a badly designed system.
The person who can demand that you support X in Y configuration NO MATTER WHAT is the person who controls your security. No matter what his/her knowledge level is.
Next, understand that you will (eventually) be cracked. Someone somewhere will make some mistake just long enough. MONITOR for that. KNOW what the regular traffic on your network looks like. PLAN for what you are going to do WHEN that happens.
I hereby claim that I have hands, therefore I am able to stab someone. Should I be detained and my property seized because I am ABLE to commit a crime?
The government does NOT do jokes about fucking with airplanes.
I guarantee you that if you were walking around an airport with a knife talking about how you COULD stab then you'd be detained. And they'd probably keep your knife.
We don't have a 'viable [domestic] market' for big budget movies/games because of our tiny population, nothing to do with our movie rating system which is far more permissive than most of our neighbours in SE Asia. Hollywood movies are typically shot on location in AU/NZ because it's cheaper than making them in the Hollywood.
stated goal of legitimizing Linux Gaming
NVidia have freely available, user hardened, linux drivers for all of their hardware, and a large scientific/gaming community that uses them. Same deal for NVidia's windows drivers.
Will they [boycott NVidia]? Probably not.
- They will flush 50% or more of their own revenue down the toilet.
- It sounds too much like extortion/ant-trust, and is probably illegal.
- NVidia already comply with their stated goal.
It's important that players who subscribe to a freemium game only gain a meta-game advantage, for example in WoT nothing you can buy in-game for real cash will give you a significant advantage on the battlefield. However a "wallet warrior" (me) will climb the tech/skill ladder ~1.5X faster than a "welfare warrior", a "wallet warrior" is able to extend the size of their garage/barracks, recycle expensive tank add-ons, paint their tank, etc.
Freemium models that significantly handicap a "welfare warriors" ability to compete with "wallet warriors" simply won't get enough players to attract a profitable community of paying customers, and the game will die. Note that the freemium model also applies to some traditional games (on a computer), such as internet bridge clubs who make money hosting tournaments, hosting bridge holidays on a cruise ship, selling/advertising advanced lessons, etc.
NVidia - I have found them to be a developer friendly company (CUDA, etc). NVidia have a large linux user community for scientific applications, their linux driver works, Yes, it would be nice if they could find a way to open source everything and there's no harm politely asking/reminding them, but hurling abuse at them for choosing not to is the act of a spoilt child. I for one, don't want OSS devs to be associated with spoilt children.
Disclaimer: Buying video games since I dropped my pocket money into a pong machine at mum & dad's local pub, circa 1970.
Read to the end for a secret revelation.
One for all the various forums, social sites and other crap that is of absolutely no importance to me and if it gets leaked and you use it to log in as me on one of them, you can post comments in my name - omg, the sky is falling.
The problem there is that all it takes is one crap site and an attacker can check all of your "reset answers" (pet's name / mom's name / etc) to see if they can be used for an attack.
One is for sites that I have some stakes in, like accounts in online games and such, where you could do some damage in the sense of destroying something that took me time to create (delete my GW2 characters, I'd hate you for it, but no real damage has been done).
A different password but does it still have the same "reset answers" that the other category does?
And you are depending upon the admins of those sites to correctly secure them and keep them sites secure for THEIR ENTIRE EXISTENCE.
And one I use for sites where you could do some damage that I could probably reverse, but it would take effort and might cause me real-world inconveniences, such as shopping sites where you could order something in my name and I'd have to go and cancel the order or send it back or whatever.
Just about all of the damage can be reversed. It's just a matter of how much time and how much money is lost doing so.
This is about preventing the damage before it costs you time and money.
Your Amazon account should NOT have the same password that your eBay account has. No matter how much you trust either of them.
My PayPal and banking accounts have their own passwords,
And they should have their own email accounts tied to them. If someone cracks your GameYouUsedToPlay.com account that should NOT give them the email address you use at your bank.
Now, for the secret revelation!
Passwords WERE once used for security.
NOW they are mostly (99.9%+) used for MARKETING. That is why almost all the sites out there require a unique login. And those sites are very lax with their MARKETING data (your username/password/answers).
Once you understand that (and what information you are leaking when you give it to them) you can make better decisions on how much RE-USABLE information you want to give them.
Think about what the minimum information an attacker would need to access your bank account (either login or social engineering) and then look at how many sites have that information.
It doesn't matter. If someone is cracking your (end-user) password at work then they probably have some other means of attempting it.
2. some reduction attack
3. pass the hash
4. fake authentication request & server
By the time the attacker has copies of the hashes and is trying to use any of the techniques in TFA on them it's too late for you as an end-user.
For non-work websites just remember 2 things:
a. DO NOT USE THE SAME PASSWORD
b. If it is financial, don't use the same username/email-address as other sites.