Well, it's definitely troubling that the F-35 is getting its ass kicked in short-range battle but you're right. We're relying on stealth and advanced sensors along with next-generation AMRAAMS and ASRAAMS to get you the victory long before gun range.
Well... You have to have a good infrastructure for continuous audio and video surveillance of everyone.
A hacker could go through all that trouble to reverse a hash but if the user changes the master password, then there's no compromise. So...the race is to have the user change passwords before the hacker hacks the hash. Should be easy to win, no?
Also, use two-factor. Seriously. No reason you shouldn't be using two-factor.
There is a technical solution
I have Verizon FiOS. They require their router for video on demand, program guide, etc. My solution -
1. Force release DHCP on their router.
2. Clone MAC on my pfsense box.
3. Reacquire DHCP via pfsense
4. Create a DMZ with a separate interface that hosts their router (without any connection to my internal network, but open access to the internet).
5. Connect the DVR box to their router
Everything works. Everyone is happy. Their router thinks it's doing the routing. The DVR box thinks their router is its bridge to the WAN and lets me use VoD.
Took me a few days to figure it out
Many people seem to think that lawyers just popped into a case and started all this ruckus. However, that's not true. Attorneys represent parties with conflicts. The parties in conflict hate each other; that's why they're in court. So each attorney is trying to win the case for their client. Thus, each client thinks that the other side's attorney is a bad person because they are an extension of the other side.
Therein lies the problem. With most court cases, you will have one winner and one loser. Fifty percent of litigants, therefore, would hate litigation.
Courts hate issuing sanctions because if you lower the bar for sanctions, well, everyone and his mother would constantly file motions for sanctions. I mean, it's tough to get sanctions but lawyers routinely act like morons and threaten sanctions. Making it easier would only waste more time with parties trying to get sanctions.
Why shouldn't attorneys get paid for their time? Again, they're representing someone. And if they're on the verge of getting money from the other side, well, aren't they just doing their job? Of course, the guy who lost will think it sucks but the guy who won is pretty happy about it.
I think that unfortunately that's ultimately what's going to happen. The latency between approval of road-going self-driving cars and ban on human driving is going to be a few years at most. In the name of safety we will lose whatever freedoms we still have.
The OP's point was probably a criticism of the sad state of network TV. Most of the shows you cite are on basic cable (AMC/FX) or premium cable, not basic over-the-air network TV. Thus, your criticism only underscores how pathetic network TV has been by comparison. I mean, as far as network TV goes, we only have Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and then what else? Jane the Virgin? Fresh Off the Boat?
AMC: Mad Men; Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Half and Catch Fire, Walking Dead
HBO: The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, True Detective
FX: The Shield, Justified, The Americans, Fargo, It's Always Sunny,
Starz: Black Sails
The computers are probably part of an effort to make "safer" nuclear bombs without nuclear testing. Our warheads are now decades old. They need to be rebuilt and redesigned to institute safer technologies. Many warheads do not have inert explosives, which means that the warheads may become dirty bombs during a fire. We have created insensitive munitions that will not explode even when dropped or burnt. These newer explosives have different properties that require testing with computers to simulate.
Doing away with negotiations might make sense if you were hiring programmers, but what about executive level staff? The C-suite people need to negotiate on behalf of the business. They need to go to vendors, clients, suppliers, etc. and argue their case. You might save a bit of money here and there but you're also losing people who are really good at negotiatingâ"I bet that the people who are good at negotiating would be negotiating themselves better salaries at other firms for more than Reddit is handing out.
As someone who double-majored in biochemistry and economics and now works as an attorney, I can say that math and science training encourages logical thinking. I am not saying, of course, that all STEM majors are logical dudes, but it definitely encourages consideration of evidence, logical reasoning, and critical thinking.
Nobody is saying that nuclear reactors are perfectly safe, but as the BP leak showed, nothing is perfectly safe. The Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors were designed back in the sixties with a horrific lack of fail safes. A modern plant would be much safer given the superior understanding of previous failure modes, advances in material sciences, and computer aid in simulating operations and design.
Hell, Chernobyl was a graphite moderated light water reactor. These reactors were designed so that they could be refueled while the plant was running. This was useful because if you left the nuclear fuel rods in there for too long, then the fissile P-239 that could be used for bombs would become P-240, which was a poison to bombs. In short, Chernobyl was designed to make fuel, not to be safe.
Fukushima was flawed in that it would require active cooling for three days after full shut down in order to be safe. Reactor 1 had a passive cooling system that relied on convection to keep the fuel at a safe temperature. An operator turned off the passive cooling system before the tsunami hit, and wasn't able to turn it on after the tsunami strike knocked out the backup generators. Newer designs provide passive cooling for up for 72 hours after a shut down.
There is no safe way to make energy. Coal mining kills many people. BP leaked tons of oil while drilling. You cannot judge nuclear power by the failure of old technologies whose flaws have been addressed in newer designs.
What people need to realize is that rolling your own data storage solution increases the risk of being hacked, losing data due to disasters, or losing remote access to files due to stupid crap like a router dying. If you're just using a NAS to store your porn, then that's fine. You'll just torrent the files back again. BUT if you are talking about pictures from your childhood, business files, or other critical documents, you seriously need to consider if you have a sufficient backup policy with off-site storage, and if you're going to be disciplined enough to update your disaster recovery plans.
I used to believe in rolling your own solution, until Synolocker came out. It became clear to me that Synology had no idea what it was doing with regard to security. I finally gave up and move my data over to Google Drive for Work. Sure, I'm giving data over to evil Google. BUT, I have access to my files anywhere with Internet access; I have two-factor authentication with the FIDO U2F app; I have a copy of the files on my computer as well as a backup in the Google cloud, which is pretty much a million times better than anything I can cook up.
I also don't have to worry about hard drive failure, updating firmwares, etc., etc.
Your personal email is the most important account you have for the reason you set forth: you can use it to reset passwords to all of your other accounts! That's why I use Google Mail along with the FIDO U2F dongle. This makes my email really secure.
Yeah but he needs a bunch of hard drives, right? That's going to be big, electricity heavy, and require cooling.