Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:supposed to. Compliance orthogonal to security (Score 1) 54

by spamking (#48404207) Attached to: State Department Joins NOAA, USPS In Club of Hacked Federal Agencies

Well, they were SUPPOSED to follow the regs. Of course that doesn't mean they did. As you suggest, though compliance and security are not only not the same thing, but they are only very loosely coupled, of it all. In some cases we've had security regulations require the use of insecure methods, such as MD5. I spent 15 years doing security for small companies before I just recently started learning compliance with all of these "security " standards.

PCI is pretty good, though. It's not comprehensive, but it doesn't require insecurity.

There are many influences on these regulations that are intended to offer some illusion of security, but all they seem to do is increase the cost to meet them and decrease the quality of services Federal Agencies are charged with providing to the American public. The Agency I'm in is fully expected to meet these requirements as laid out by HITECH and Meaningful Use. However, the ROI is not remotely worth the effort. Let's spend millions meeting some requirement so we can increase our collections by some very small percentage. Spend millions attempting to meet some requirement that will never be met . . .

Drives me crazy.

Comment: Re:FISMA Security huh (Score 1) 54

by spamking (#48404105) Attached to: State Department Joins NOAA, USPS In Club of Hacked Federal Agencies

I always found it entertaining that In govt you have zero education people dictating IT and IS policies.

But it's the same way in corporate america, I have yet to meet a CIO or CTO that has a clue.

This is so true. They often ask us to interpret a policy for them and ignore it when it's an answer they don't want to hear. We (the Federal government) do a great job of setting ourselves up for failure.

Comment: Re:Hand out the PP slides after the talk. (Score 1) 181

by spamking (#46430343) Attached to: Physics Forum At Fermilab Bans Powerpoint

Yes. But why hand out slides? Why have slides at all? You've already learned more than the slides contain; what will slides add?

If you like notes, you were taking notes during the talk - which are more useful than slides would be.

I think most folks get more out of an interactive lecture than some death by powerpoint . . . However, providing the "slides" or whatever later can allow students/participants to compare their notes with the lecture content. I have been known to miss a few points throughout a lecture and not get them written down.

Comment: Re:critical thinking (Score 1) 561

by spamking (#40701951) Attached to: Obama Wants $1 Billion For "Master Teachers Corps"

I blame the unions. The unions get their money from the teachers.

That's a fair statement. But I'm sure some teachers couldn't tell you anything about their union or their talking points.

If the teachers put a stop to it it would halt. They do not. They say they give a shit about the kids. But that is not as important as a years pay for a few months work, full benefits for them for life and tenure.

A few month's work? That's the second time you've mentioned that. What's the deal?

You do realize that there are many teachers on 12-month contracts and that those teachers work year-round right?

Comment: Re:Protip: (Score 1) 646

That does not necessarily involve being overly paranoid and outright spying on all of their communications.

Are you saying a parent has no right to "spy" on anything their kids are doing? That's very naive . . .

Now you've excluded anyone who doesn't do so as a "good parent." No True Good Parent would tell you otherwise.

Unfortunately there are also bad parents in this world to go along with the good ones . . .

What metric are you using to determine what a true good parent is? One that sees things the way you do? Which is obviously to allow the kid to do what they want and hope they make the right choice on their own?

Because many people seem to be, in my opinion, going overboard. They're paranoid of everything and desperate to block anything they don't want their precious children seeing based on what appears to be nothing. For the children, of course.

If going overboard = me poking my nose into my daughters' lives then I'll gladly go overboard. If being paranoid = me attempting to keep them innocent and sheltered from what I deem to be inappropriate material for their age then I'll gladly be paranoid. Kids grow up fast enough today. No need to make it happen any faster.

Since I find it highly unlikely that they'll actually be affected in a negative way by the content, any age. Unless the parent has determined themselves that this specific child is negatively affected by the content. It seems to be assumed most of the time.

What if I find it very likely that my child is affected in a negative way by this content? Based on what you've been posting most parents aren't smart enough to make that determination . . .

Comment: Re:Communication (Score 1) 646

You claimed an 8-year-old can self-regulate their XBox usage.

And they very well might be able to. But it's possible to be responsible in general without being responsible 100% of the time.

And that's the point . . . I would hope a parent would be able to better determine if their 8 year-old was behaving responsibly and know better than the 8 year-old would.

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.