The captain of one of our Confederate submarines once sighted Chuck Norris's yacht through his periscope. He immediately surfaced and joined the Union, presenting his sword and sidearm as a gift.
You do know that Texas was a part of the Confederacy? Right?
I am lucky to have worked for some darn good companies when it comes to security.
Ditto. I give thanks regularly that the business principals who run the company I work for get it, generally.
Combine that with the fact that a single cloud provider has yet to have been breached, usually makes the CEO/CTO push for a cloud solution, stat.
: When I ask about the intrusion scenario, the business I was interviewing at said, "we just call Tata or Infosys, and they will fix it."
There may not have been any breaches of a "cloud provider", yet, but that's not really surprising. Honestly, the security posture of most cloud operations I've considered is superior to that of a damn lot of businesses who run their own stuff. So, in a cloud scenario, a breach from the host side of things is far less likely than from something on the guest/client side. There's a reason that AWS makes it extremely hard to get them to sign a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement, for example. They'll do it, because they know that their stack is solid, but not before you've satisfied them that what you plan on deploying on their stack is just as solid. Most things thrown up to the cloud don't get that kind of vetting, and not at all surprisingly, those same things get pwned with pretty much the same regularity as their non-cloud counterparts.
I swear if I ever meet the guy who decided that "the cloud" was something magical instead just another term for "someone else's servers", I'm going to... to... uh... pain! Lots of pain.
Oh, she gets a lot of things right. She brings with her a lot of valid observations from her time in a totalitarian state, and she sees how many of them are applied in her new home country. There is a lot of commentary she gets right.
Where she goes wrong is in assuming this means that only selfish people should lead the world and then everything will be all right. In fact, it is amazing that she misses that observation from the totalitarian state. Her perception was selective indeed.
As was her writing on that point; it's hard to find more selfish people than the ones she so strongly despise in her stories. They just happen to not be written as heroes, and therefore their selfishness is bad, while that of the heroes is good. Simply because her stories make it so.
Ow! Man that whooshing sound (as your observation passed over the heads of the Rand fanboys here) was so loud it hurt my ears. Well said, sir.
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%.
Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
Anyone who believes that that ratio is all there is to it is, well, plain fucking stupid. Climate science (like most science) can not be reduced to sound bites like that.
Yeah, and what good is your phone? The only thing you can do on it well is talk. That's one of the rarest things I do on my phone, and I avoid it whenever possible. For texting, navigation, web browsing, dating apps, voice mail, etc., your phone is useless. You need all those sensors and a big touchscreen to do those things (yes, including texting; texting on a 0-9 keypad is idiotic and unusable) (and yes, including voice mail too; listening to voice mail is so 1990s, these days I read my voice mail with Google Voice).
Texting on a touch screen keypad is idiotic. Yes, it's an improvement over a 10-key, but just barely, i.e. it still sucks compared to more useful input devices. Useful? I can convey far more information with my smartphone's antiquated talky thing than I can with that shitty keyboard, meaning that "app" is still the most useful thing on my smart phone. Don't get my wrong. Having a browser and a GPS in my pocket is useful, from time to time, but when it comes to actual effective communication, the platform has a long way to go before it can supplant telephony.
/. does lean left, because, you know, we are smart
"Smart" does not mean "agrees with my politics", and only someone who's deeply insecure about the validity of his own beliefs would suggest that it does
Nevertheless, there are a number of studies that show a clearly observable correlation between a subject's education or intelligence and his/her political leanings. Granted, there's a fair amount of fuzziness around what constitutes a particular leaning, and the debate rages around which metrics are the most useful when quantifying intelligence, but the evidence is clear and consistent - smart people tend to be more liberal in their views. Why is that, do you think?
I've been saying for years software companies should be taking the lead of the UIs we see in the movies.
They often look better designed and convey more information than some of real GUIs I see.
That's a really clean looking dashboard in my opinion.
Yeah, because shiny beats the hell out of "works", right? Look, I'm a big fan of good UI design, and most products leave a lot to be desired, but please do not make the mistake of thinking that looks makes up for function or performance.
Summary sucks, so I went to the article to see what it was about... Basically it is a prebuilt penetration testing system. Now they're using the latest packages instead of older stale packages often associated with Debian, I guess?
Well, yes. If you don't know what Kali Linux is all about, the summary will certainly leave you wanting. Assuming that everyone here on
Agree. Storing national secrets alongside Bubba's sexy late night e-mails on a private server should be punishable by life in prison.
Well, yes, but why is Hillary the only one who's being taken to task for this? If want to stand on the policy high-ground, fine, but you don't get to play politics with what you see from there. You either hand out sanctions and punishment with an even hand or you STFU.
I don't argue the point that Uber drivers and/or Uber itself is breaking laws in many jurisdictions.
The point is that while some of those laws seem to serve a legitimate purpose (providing insurance protection for passengers, etc.) others are intended to protect the profits and often poor service of the taxi monopoly.
Perhaps, but before the taxi industry was regulated it was a fucking nightmare. Trust me, you don't want that. No. Really. All the coolness of Uber is going to look like so much dumb-ass naivete if they succeed in making their unregulated service "legal". History... doomed to repeat it, and all that.
That's my kind of idea. WTF do we, as a nation, put up with this kind of asinine shit?
We put up with it because we have no choice. We have long since given up our power as citizens in a democratic republic to control the actions of our system of law and government. Corporate money is in power now, and it is unlikely to be unseated until things get much, much worse.
"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_