Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Seems reasonable (Score 1) 113

by ilsaloving (#49784469) Attached to: Insurer Won't Pay Out For Security Breach Because of Lax Security

That's why the grandparents post mentions audits that are defined by the insurance company. If the insurance companies believes that you've taken all reasonable precautions, then the buck stops there. As the insurance client, your responsibility is to meeting the insurers requirements. If something *still* goes bad, then the insurer gives you money.

How the insurer reclaims that money is a different question altogether, and is generally irrelevant to you as the client (with the obvious exception of raising your rates).

Comment: Re:Seems reasonable (Score 1) 113

by ilsaloving (#49784411) Attached to: Insurer Won't Pay Out For Security Breach Because of Lax Security

While I agree 100% with what you're saying, I think the problem lies in the fact that there is no consistent, *external* measure to indicate your security level, and that's where things fly off the rails.

There are things like SOX compliance (in the US, anyway), but that's more for auditibility than security. What is the minimum required aspects your infrastructure has to have to be able to say that you're considered reasonably "secure"? Encryption of all data stores using an officially recognised encryption scheme? All logins for all devices managed through kerberos? All communications between devices must be wrapped by SSL?

I don't know if there's an ISO standard or something that mandates these things, but it sounds to me that until there are some clear minimum requirements to indicate securedness, this all seems like nothing more like a license for insurance companies to print money on the backs of their clients.

One will *always* be able to give some hindsight response whenever a breach occurs... to the point where companies would have to lock themselves tighter than Fort Knox before they *might* be able to squeeze money out of their insurance provider.

Comment: Need to flood the market! (Score 1) 185

The only way we're going to be able to drive wages into the ground while simultaneously getting/abusing the creme of the talent crop will be to flood the market with CS people. Doesn't matter if it's schools or immigration... just flood the damn market already!
--All Fortune 100 Tech Company CEOs.

Comment: Re:Chrome - the web browser that's added as bloatw (Score 1) 240

by ilsaloving (#49614285) Attached to: Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip

I just need to point out something to all the people bitterly complaining about how IE "got better" and no longer deserves it's reputation:

It doesn't matter that IE is better now. It's too late.

Even by Microsoft's "it takes 3 tries to get it right" reputation, IE is still a failure. IE didn't get even remotely functional until, what, version 10? That's 9 major previous versions, spanning well over a decade, that IE was varying levels of shit. For over a decade, IE not only didn't support web standards, but actively broke them in an attempt to segregate and silo the web. And by the time it finally occurred to Microsoft that they were losing that war, the IE code base had become such a steaming craphole that it was unrecoverable. Not only the code base, but the IE brand.

Finally, all you people shouting, "But but but..." are clearly not web developers. If you were, you would realize how much of a mindblowing pain in the ass it is to make a website that supports IE. You essentially have to make one website for IE, and one website for everybody else. Who cares if IE11 finally has support standards that other browsers have supported for 5 years? That still leaves the IE10, IE9, etc users, most of whom don't even have the slightest concept of what version of IE they are using. And it is these people that will complain that you are lying and are dishonest because your website says it works with IE when it clearly doesn't.

There are only 2 rational solutions to this: Write off IE entirely and say you just don't support it, or you charge your clients triple what it would normally cost, to cover the cost of the additional aggravation. If you're lucky, the company will at least do testing to verify that the site will at least work on a relatively modern (ie: 9+) version without exploding horribly.

Microsoft is abandoning IE and releasing Edge because they have no other choice if they want to remain even the slightest bit relevant. IE has been a zombie for years now, just plodding along and waiting for someone to put it out of its misery.

Comment: Re:Hahah (Score 1) 246

I'm not sure what PC stuff you're talking about. The kid clearly has issues. Your comment is a completely unnecessary, and downright silly, attempt at taking a stab at the left.

That being said, based on current societal values (ie: What society actionably treats as acceptable, rather than what they *say* is acceptable) I think the only thing wrong is that he got caught. Had he succeeded, he would have made an excellent CEO.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 703

by ilsaloving (#49580955) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

All fair points. And also don't forget about the ridiculous bailout the Democrats gave Wall Street too. They should have been put in jail, not given a free ride.

It's really distressing. The choices are basically, do you want a lubricated glove (Democrats), or a chainsaw (Republicans). But you still need to bend over regardless.

Only reason I lean towards the Democrats, is that there is at least a theoretical chance that a good person may make it to the top, like Elizabeth Warren or that other guy that recently threw his hat in (I forget his name now...). With the Republicans, it's very clear they will do everything they can as quickly as they can, to make sure world burns and force their messiah to come down a toast gold-plated marshmallows on the world's charred remains.

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1, Troll) 703

by ilsaloving (#49578197) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

Actually, there have been several studies that demonstrate that republicans go out of their way to spread disinformation. For example, people who watch Fox News know *less* about current events that people who don't watch any news programs at all.

Googling for 'conservative stupid study' will give you article after article

The thing is, it's not about whether Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. Everyone seems to be under this assumption that Democrats=liberal and Republicans=conservative. In actuality, Democrats=center leaning conservatives, and Republicans=psycho theocrats that make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look rational.

The Democrats most closely correlate with the conservatives of the 60s-80s. They're hardly perfect, and they have their own moments of self-serving garbage. But Republicans? They actively *scare* me. They are hell bent on persecuting everything that isn't white, male, and rich, and heterosexual. And that persecution goes up exponentially as you take away more of those elements. They have not only consistently voted against *anything* that would help the average American, but they have repealed existing laws that help, especially when it comes to womens rights.

As one example: The Democrats implemented one of the single most important pieces of legislation that helps fix the horrific mess that is the US health care system. It has been clearly demonstrated now that not only do many Americans now have access to health care that they didn't have access to before, but it has decreased overall health care costs. The Republicans have been trying, and continue to try, to repeal the ACA for no logical reason whatsoever.

Republicans are railing against Obama for *not* being enough of a war-monger. They collectively deny basic science like evolution. The list just goes on and on. It's not that Democrats are good. It's that the Republicans are *insane*.

Comment: Re:systemd is a bad joke (Score 1) 494

by ilsaloving (#49551445) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

I see that I've been modded troll for asking a legitimate question.

I think says more about systemd haters than it does about me.

Maybe if those of you who hate systemd spent less time frothing at the mouth, and more time giving genuine, practical arguments, then maybe the distro people would take you more seriously.

And then you people wonder why systemd is taking the world by storm, despite your angry chest-beating.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"