Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Sounds like they already answered this (Score 1) 340

They fight the policies because the policies are forced on them by IT people that have no clue what engineers need. Every request to deviate from "the policy" is met with people like you proclaiming they're "fighting" the corporate IT policies. They just want to get their jobs done, which is what IT traditionally was there for, to help people get work done.

IT professionals just want to get their job done as well, which part of that duty is to ensure that systems and networks remain secure while helping people get their work done. Security policies are forced by the statistics and risks that justify their existence and enforcement.

People use cars to do the job of transportation. They don't wear seat belts because they're just going around the corner. They only had a little to drink. They respond to one more text message. They speed through a red light because they're in a hurry. These insecure actions ignore risk, and fight policies that exist for valid reasons. Unfortunately, we know what the end result is when security is ignored. The life of a person is at risk in this scenario. The life of a company is at risk when you look at the parallels.

"You're just being overprotective. It'll never happen to me." - famous last words.

Comment Re:Sounds like they already answered this (Score 1) 340

They don't need to be security experts to know that they shouldn't run unencrypted drives on portable systems, the importance of good passwords, not running executables sent via email, etc. What do you think is going on with their dev environments that's so critical you need to have a security team to manage it?

What is going on in dev environments is often an abundance of sensitive data and code that is of high value to a corporation, and does not need to be inadvertently leaked to the competition via a hack or attack on systems. Do they need to be security experts? No. Do they need to be armed with common sense to ensure they follow security policy properly? Yes. The problem is they often fight common sense and best practice when it comes to security policy.

What you propose leads to a nightmare of locked down IT approved setups that are practically useless for getting development work done, and then you have a separate set of systems and network for doing the real work that is not IT encumbered. It doesn't achieve anything. IT generally refuses to acknowledge the needs of engineering and does nothing put but roadblocks in their way. That's not the role of that organization. You'll end up with very secure systems that will be sold for cheap at auction after the company is bankrupt and out of business.

What I propose is a system of standards that is adhered to based on best practice and common sense to avoid systems being hacked, and all of the intellectual property is stolen, which is also a path towards bankruptcy. Secure systems and processes achieve a goal by insulating a business from that threat. At the end of the day, it's all about risk management and mitigation efforts, which 99% of corporate users believe it will never happen to them, helping feed an insecure mentality.

Most InfoSec professionals can show the error of human ways based on historical events. What they cannot do is change those ways, so history will sadly repeat itself.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 355

Oh so your ultimate answer is taxation on the AI/robotic overlords in order to feed the masses?

Again, your ignorance blinds you.

Dude, tone down the rhetoric. It really doesn't facilitate rational discussion. Unless your goal isn't to have a rational discussion but just to make yourself feel good by spewing doom. In that case, I guess you're succeeding, but I have no motivation to participate further.

I don't like wading around in the pool of reality any more than you do, but I don't like believing in a pipe dream either. Prove to me that the future will be any better than what the reality of today is, and I'll change my tone. Otherwise, I speak the truth, and often the truth hurts.

You assume that taxation has been the ultimate answer today, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens, driven by billionaire-funded lobbyists who manipulate governments into funding this kind of Greed. I fail to see how this shit situation will ever change in the future. The end result will be UBI being funded at the lowest legal level, which will essentially mean Welfare 2.0 for the planet.

The problem with money sitting offshore is caused entirely by the foolish decision to tax corporate income. Drop the corporate taxes -- or even reduce the rate significantly -- and that money will come flooding back, because it's not actually doing its owners any good offshore. Instead tax the shareholders on their gains. They can't so easily hide offshore because they actually want to live here.

The real problem (as you define it) is succeeding with dropping corporate taxes. The reason these loopholes exist is due to Greed that has gone unchecked. As I've stated before, we need to Solve for Greed in order to fix the underlying problems associated with it. Until man learns to be content and actually desire to help their fellow man, the world will continue down the path Greed has created. And to reinforce the reality of today, the chasm between the wealthy elite and the rest of the human race is growing, not shrinking. Soon, any care or concern about those on the other side of that great divide will evaporate into nothing. What you label as "foolishness" is backed by armies of lobbyists, representing the wealthy elite who practically demand tax loopholes in order to secure their riches. And they get what they demand today. Show me how that will change, and perhaps the truth of the future will not be as painful as it is today.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 355

Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.

Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.

Solution for what? What is the problem?

The coming wave of automation is going to create an unparalleled era of abundance. The reason many jobs will disappear is because there will be no need for humans to labor. This isn't a problem, this is awesome!

We do have to figure out a way to transition from our current scarcity-based economic structure, with incentives that are focused on making sure as many people as possible work, to a post-scarcity economy that has no need of such stark and powerful labor incentives (e.g. work or starve). My guess is that this will take the form of a universal basic income, paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production. But because automation will dramatically lower the cost of goods and services, this should be easy to do. The only real obstacles are getting everyone to understand the need to make the transition, and handling the timing so that the need to work is phased out in step with the reduced demand for work.

Oh so your ultimate answer is taxation on the AI/robotic overlords in order to feed the masses?

Again, your ignorance blinds you. You assume that taxation has been the ultimate answer today, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens, driven by billionaire-funded lobbyists who manipulate governments into funding this kind of Greed. I fail to see how this shit situation will ever change in the future. The end result will be UBI being funded at the lowest legal level, which will essentially mean Welfare 2.0 for the planet.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 355

>The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept

Agreed. I've been arguing that for years but you get people from one side arguing about buggy whips and history repeating itself and people from the other side arguing 'post-scarcity paradise'.

Since there IS no practical solution to the issue - power's going to accumulate in the hands of whoever owns the robots - it gets tiring to ask people to think one up when you get constantly dismissed.

I expect we'll see an exponential trend in wealth disparity growth, and then a revolution that (hopefully) happens before the rich have the capacity to rule with the force of robotic armies.

It'd be NICE if everyone shared in the productivity increase, perhaps if we started by legislating reduced work weeks, but history shows there are enough greedy amoral assholes out there that this is unlikely, and the masses will stay complacent so long as their bellies are full and they have some entertainment to keep them occupied.

It would be NICE if those handful who control the wealth of the fucking planet would help those who are starving and simply struggling to survive, but the reality is that shit isn't going to happen, and the exponential trend you worry about is going to be the end result.

This is why I keep stating the obvious; in order to survive we need to Solve for Greed.

Comment Re:Sounds like they already answered this (Score 1) 340

What you call a nightmare, I call an effective R&D organization. IT is a barrier to engineers being successful. Forced compliance with no input from engineering means that engineers will spend a lot of their time trying to find work-arounds for things they need to do but have had roadblocks put in place. Any decent developer knows the value of strong passwords and encryption. If you have numb-nuts that don't understand that, they shouldn't be in your codebase. They're incompetent. Yes, developers tend to postpone updates. I'm an offender there. Why? Context switching costs time which costs money. Once the system resets there's a cost associated with getting back to the previous point, looking at whatever code, docs, tests, remote systems, etc. It's a balancing act. The wrong solution is forcing updates and rebooting systems in the middle of presentations or some tricky debugging. Again, there's a cost there. IT has no place in engineering unless they're specifically requested.

"Specifically requested" implies that engineers know how to manage their own environments, and are security experts. Reality shows they are clearly not, and the importance of security overriding business demand whenever necessary.

Much like the ambulance racing through the city streets ignoring traffic lights, I don't give a shit what the fuck what users assume is the priority du jour. An InfoSec professional is hired and on staff to ensure systems are protected at all times, not when it's merely convenient.

Comment Re:Sounds like they already answered this (Score 1) 340

From a security perspective, I was including developers in that description of average users.

That may be indicative of problems in your hiring methodology, management, and/or employee conduct standards.

Given the fact that society has not changed one bit regardless of the increasing risk, I'd say it's more a problem of you not understanding human behavior.

The top 10 worst passwords have not changed in decades, standing in the face of increasing risk of hacking and identity theft because of shitty passwords. That clearly says one thing; humans don't give a shit about security.

It doesn't even matter anymore as to why, as many have given up on understanding that. Doesn't matter if it's the It'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome, or I-don't-give-a-shit syndrome. The fact of the matter is human behavior has not changed, no matter what the risk is.

Because of this, it doesn't matter how hiring practices are modified. And these days, management cannot afford to lose a valuable asset, even temporarily, so little value is placed on security enforcement.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 355

Oh yeah it's positively terrible out there for humans! This morning I had to dodge around all the robots doing road construction on my street, the robot neighbor walking his robot dogs, the robot making my espresso when I got to work, all the robots in the hallways, the lab full of robots working on validatiing other robots, and just now I got an email from my robot boss who sent me a list of all the robots that he wants me to be sure have access to our fileserver so they can share information with other robots about the robot projects they're all working on for the robot CEO. Just remembered I'll need to go down to the cafeteria later to ask the robot cashiers to give me a refund for the vending machine that ripped me off. I am looking forward to when I'm off work, there are robot shows I want to sit down and watch with my robot wife and robot kids, and it's always relaxing to make the robot cat chase the laser pointer.

Your ignorance blinds you. The fact is damn near every fucking example you've brought forth here is at risk within the next 15 - 20 years.

Think about that before you rant again, because much like the rest of society, you have no solution for it.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 2) 355

Few places investigate robots until it's easier than hiring meat, which usually means they're thinking of an 8 hour shift.

Once they get a robot and realize that (excepting maintenance) it can go 24/7 and doesn't need vacation, sick time, it turns out robots are around 6.5x more productive than a human (at a task a robot can currently perform). The fact that they don't need benefits either makes them even more cost effective.

And that's just uptime. Robots - for a lot of tasks, at least - have the capacity to be much, much faster than humans, with a much lower error rate if the task is sufficiently standardized.

No one is arguing the benefit of replacing humans with robots.

The problem to solve is one of Greed, as in what the hell are the 99% supposed to survive and thrive on once the AI/automation overlords declare employing a human a dead concept.

I keep hearing proposals of taxation to offset this, along with concepts like UBI. I call bullshit on all of this, because corporations are some of the best examples of tax-dodging, as trillions sit in offshore tax havens. That shit situation will likely never change, nor will pure unadulterated Greed that drives this notion to replace every human job with AI/automation in order to "save costs".

Vision of the future? Sorry, vision doesn't exceed the next fiscal quarter. That is all that those who impact this situation care about.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 272

What you fail to understand here is the Greed I wish to solve for is not Greed stemming from the average man. It is the particular flavor of Greed that is creating this clusterfuck. The humans who literally have billions and are still not satisfied and demand more.

What part about the words "hedonic treadmill" don't you understand? Go look up what that term means and then think about what you just said here. It perfectly explains what you're complaining about, and the hedonic treadmill applies to all people, from hobos to billionaires.

That chasm between the handful of humans who own half the wealth on the planet isn't shrinking. The proverbial treadmill may exist at all levels, but it is out of fucking control at the highest levels. We need to stop fucking "observing" the phenomenon of never being content at that level, and solve for it, so we can stop dividing the human race between the 1% who control and manipulate the 99%.

THAT is the Greed that we need to solve for, and for the benefit of all mankind.

No, it won't benefit anybody. All it will do is effectively cap economic growth and make people poorer, which is exactly what you end up with when you try to "fix" these things. Yes, it is true that the rich get richer, however the poor are also getting richer. Does the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest increase over time? Yes. However that does not in any way mean that the poor are getting poorer, and in fact the poor are not getting poorer, and in fact their quality of life is always improving, which is something that can actually be proven with hard numbers and statistics:

By the way, I'm willing to bet that you'd score worse than the chimpanzees in Hans Rosling's test.

In the past, shifts in technology resulted in humans being put out of a job. The answer was always "go find another one", or "go get educated".

The discussion at hand here has to do with the next, and likely last evolution of technology, which is automation and AI replacing the concept of human employment. CEOs today would rather hire robots than pay humans $15/hour minimum wage. That greedy mentality is merely the tip of the iceberg. AI engines that can comb through thousands of legal cases in minutes will outperform any human lawyer with regards to research. Robotics working with precision that will eliminate human error in the surgical room. Autonomous cars removing the need for human drivers and any related employment. Within the next half-century, automation and AI will likely be able do any job a human is doing today, and probably better. Unless we solve for Greed, the chasm between those who control automation and AI and the rest of the human race will continue to grow, perhaps well beyond care or concern for the unemployed masses. Go get an education? What the hell for? There's nothing for humans to actually go do anymore. The wealthiest billionaires on the planet have no desire today to part ways with the majority of their riches in order to better the planet, so I fail to see how that would ever change in the future.

To Hans Roslings credit, has the quality of life across the planet improved? Yes. My point is it could be a hell of a lot better for a lot more people if the wealthy elite actually embraced the concept of being content, and shared wealth to help millions. Of course, the other impact of reducing natural disaster deaths and people living longer is managing finite resources against an ever-growing population, which will eventually fight against the goal of ever-improving metrics. Forget the Greed problem for a minute. Think the planet can sustain a population of 12 billion? 20 billion? How hard is resource management when human employment is all but extinct for the majority of the human race, and the average lifespan is 120 years? As far as money vs. wealth, today money is the tool that buys material goods and creates wealth. And unless mass philanthropy starts spreading, it is money that buys survival.

Comment Re:Sounds like they already answered this (Score 3, Informative) 340

If they want to pick their own tools, let them. I don't understand this fear of giving developers admin access to their machines. What do you think is going to happen if they get this supremely powerful level of access? If some are happy with VMs, let them use VMs. If some want to install, configure, and update their tools manually, let them. If it becomes a problem for a specific developer, steer them towards a VM instead. If you can't trust developers to maintain their system then you probably shouldn't be trusting them to write your company's code either.

From a security point of view, you've painted a fucking nightmare. Look at how the average user chooses passwords when given the complete freedom to use "123456". Update tools manually? That would be never, because maintaining security patches takes time and effort they don't want to be bothered with that. Give them local admin rights and they'll install any development tool they feel like using, including ones that may need to be licensed properly in order to be legal in a business or corporate environment. They would bitch about disk encryption slowing their system down, so of course let's disable/uninstall that, dismissing any concern of IP or weeks of work gone due to laptop theft or loss, which of course leads into the next issue of local storage, as they would bitch about network speeds being too slow when doing work across any wire, so all work will be stored locally with no backups, ready to fall victim to hardware failure.

There's a reason you hire competent IT professionals and developers, because the latter does not replace the former; has nothing to do with trust.

It seems like our uber powerful dev machines are turning into expensive terminals and the ESX cloud is our new time sharing mainframe. Everything old is new again.

Users suck at security. Always have. Nothing is new, other than the threat of compromise or data loss increasing year after year, and tools being rather necessary to counteract that threat. Risk mitigation is the name of the game today.

Comment Re:Our Future. (Score 1) 272

Which will never work, UBI will never work. Why because people will never be satisfied with what they have. They will always want more.

Which is why UBI will work. People won't just sit back and be lazy - they will want more, and will work for it. The whole "UBI will just create lazy people" meme is a lie, because people always want more.

Oh really?

Ever notice how many people living in the Welfare state are highly motivated to change their status?

Yeah, me neither.

Comment Re:Thanks for the gimmicks (Score 1) 97

Just stop already. Give me what I really want. Intel, ati graphics, g2 to g5 lte, 5 days battery life, 2-3 usb ports, and a dock so I can plug it in and use it as a desktop with full featured Os.

Curious, you plan on prioritizing security when converting your desktop into one of the most hacked platforms on the planet, or will a good security model continue to be a mere annoyance for the masses?

Slashdot Top Deals

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics