I think what we are seeing here is progress, albeit slow and with a long road ahead. Their stated purpose of having a dialogue is, in itself, an important and positive step forward. Comey's remark on skepticism being fair, but cynicism being problematic, is reasoned and nuanced. I think this is a good sign that the intelligence community is starting to grapple with the need for open discussion, and is making a case towards that end.
This illustrates the moral depravity of the author's viewpoint entirely.
We aren't fighting the system if we say "The bankers steal from us, so let's steal as they do." On the contrary, it is a clarion call to become evil like them. It is an injustice and tragedy that those who that participated in the financial crisis have not been held to account, but the tragedy becomes catastrophe if we follow in their footsteps.
Security hasn't been mentioned, and is rather important. Principally, I would want to know about (a) the regulatory requirements and (b) the risk of whatever security controls you would put in place (e.g. the loss potential) versus the value gained.
All of that said, if I owned a company doing what you described, I would certainly investigate options six ways from Sunday to find a better method, and I would suspect a better one than what you described is possible.
The core components of information security are often misunderstood. The triad of confidentiality, integrity and availability are important to consider. There is a symbiosis between these three components. For example, if confidentiality and availability is highly restrictive, can we really be confident in the integrity of the data with so few people who have such limited access?
The old adage, being so tragically expressed here in real world terms, that the only "secure" computer is locked in a vault at the bottom of an ocean belies the very nature of security. For data to be useful and meaningful, it must be accessible to the people who need it when they need it. Failure to properly deliver accessibility will consequently build pressure on confidentiality (e.g. it will be shared inappropriately) and/or data integrity (e.g. the data will grow stale/irrelevant/etc).
A typewriter is a medieval instrument for data security. Because they have rockets, they might as well start building castle walls. They are, in essence and by design, surrendering. Sun Tzu would be proud of such an adversary that could create this result. Masterful.
Perhaps one of the more important works in the geek lexicon of art. The book and the film were very inspirational for me. For the first time as a child, I understood and could relate to that thing we have called pattern recognition. The moment in the film at the chalkboard was etched into my mind -- that that is is that that that is not is not is that it it is. Understanding the differences between people, and understanding them in their depths without glorification, is such a positive thing.
We are lucky to have art such as this and for all you old folks (over 30, naturally), ask the geek kids you work with or know to read the book or see the film. They may never have heard of it!
It doesn't matter, it's just math(s), the end result is that we will never see that laser and we will never be able to reach that galaxy either.
Infinity and void are incredibly powerful concepts, but I don't think "never" is particularly useful, especially when describing a universe for which our body of knowledge is so incredibly limited.
Math allows you to go to the centre of the Milky Way and back in a day....
Corrected that for you.
From every description I've heard of "dark energy" it sounds like a kind of place-filler variable for something--as in, "This equation only works if we put in X, but we have no idea what X is."
Physicists brought us the dark energy hypothesis, not mathematicians. This is an important distinction: dark energy is not used to solve an equation, rather it is a phenomenon that we can indirectly observe.
Black holes, Dark energy, Zero point energy -- there are so many nascent concepts that hint at great disruption to our theories but that have not had the time to sort themselves out. Humanity rigorously worked on the concept of gravity for several hundred years before we had our Einstein.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.