Was it too hard to add a link to the ANTVR Kickstarter page?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I don't think "co-opted" means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure Google just paid the operator for their service.
Notice that a lot of these services, particularly Facebook and Google+, specifically say it's against the rules to have more than one account.
This could work out well - create a second account and hope they both get deleted, then you can be 100% sure you're starting from bare-metal / scorched-earth.
Bad Things will probably happen if you try this.
Say you remove disk0 (sda) and take it home. Now the array is rebuilding disk3 (new sda) from disk1 (sdb). disk1 has a problem, and the rebuild fails. No prob, you say, just put back disk0 as sda. Depending on how your RAID system is set up, it may sees two different generations between the two drives, and go with the newer one - the failed drive. It then stars to overwrite your disk0 from disk1, and you only lose the delta between old and new data at whatever point you realize and stop it. Some systems have safeguards that won't allow this, they require "blank" drives to rebuild. If you want to reuse drives from another system, you have to wipe the first few MB or the whole drive for it to be accepted.
The worst case would be if it sees that there's a matched volume (no generation information) already on disk0 and just picks up where it left off, in which case you have different data on 2 sides of your mirror. You get "silent" corruption if either drive fails. AFAIK no system does this, any time you swap drives a rebuild is forced one way or another.
As you said, it only covers one drive failure, either elective OR unintentional.
To make their idiocy even more evident, the SHORTEST interval that NTPD will hit a server is once per 16 seconds. So those once a second idiots were using software that itself was written by idiots.
So you don't think this was 1 NATted IP running 16+ servers behind it? As someone said above the default for some OSes is to hit the pool directly.
I think it's some of King's best work. It's worth reading at least one to see if you're into the series. The first one is harder to get into than the rest.
I read The Wastelands first. It reminded me a little of The Stand, but with more detail around Roland (main dude) and less background on what's going on in the world. It was interesting enough that I decided to go back and see what I'd missed.
Tried to read The Gunslinger and got bored after a little while - there are a few other characters, but it's mostly two dudes in the desert. The Drawing of the Three was more in the vein of Wastelands, and from there I blazed through each book as soon as it came out.
You may not realize it, but you've seen glimpses of the DT universe through most of King's books.
A PS3 controller has four control buttons (one through four lines o,x,tri,square), four "shoulder" buttons (L1,L2,R1,R2), two clickable joysticks (L3,R3), three system buttons (Select,PS3,Start) and four d-pad directions.
If you count L3 and R3 as d-pads as well, that's 26 buttons. You need to hold the controller as well, so that's ~26 functions across 2 hands and/or 10 fingers.
Compare that to an arcade console with a joystick + 2 buttons or the classic NES controller with 8 buttons and it dwarfs both of them.
Even compare it to a keyboard layout for most games - WASD, Ctrl, Shift, Space, MOUSE1-3 and mouse move, that's still about double.
You eventually need to get to a C-level officer, something like CTO or COO who can actually mandate change. Somehow, in the places that I've worked I've been lucky enough to have CTOs that understand the concept of (and need for) security. They made a lot of changes that made sense to me (passwords must be changed more than once every 3 years, user data must not be stored on local machines, principles of least access, etc.) but other users didn't understand the business need behind them. "Yes, your department could hit all of its goals and produce its reports a day faster if everyone had access to everything, but if you use these rules then you take the extra day and you know it's right because it's auditable!"
Convince them that your business goals will be met faster / more auditably / with less risk if you implement certain policies. Risk is your best friend, although it sounds like your upper-level managers ignore it rather than mitigate it. It's going to take you a while, so get started now. Does your boss understand the problem? If not, can you explain and convince them that you know what you're talking about?
If you can't explain or justify your views on security, either learn some more or find a new job - it's not worth your while or the damage to your reputation from being associated with an insecure company if your title is Senior Security anything.