... rpi kubernetes cluster for a few hundred bucks. You can run hadoop or spark or hbase or mesos on a cloud provider. Learn ansible, prometheus, go, python or loads of other things in your browser. You can show off your skills outside your job on github or bitbucket
100% buzzword compliant. You list products that are 2 years old.
Which brings up the old joke about HR looking for someone with 10 years experience in X which has only been out for 5 years.
Yes, you can PLAY with all of those for very little money but you won't KNOW all of those. You will be a dilettante. And swapping out existing tools for whatever was released 2 years ago is a recipe for disaster.
No, there is nothing about you or your skills that is so unique that you cannot be replaced.
And if your severance package depends upon you teaching your replacement how to do your job (see Disney), you are even easier to replace.
I have skills that are useful and hard to find.
They may be useful, but they are not hard to find.
And yeah, I get that sucks. But the solution is to learn more skills so you can get the first type of job.
Unless you personally are working for Google or Facebook that kind of invalidates your position. You aren't so rare that Google is fighting to get you.
Look up "confirmation bias". You think that because your decisions have resulted in your position that anyone who has not achieved that position has made incorrect decisions. The reality is that when a company wants to cut their IT costs to save money, your skills will have nothing to do with their decision.
That's why it's "heart breaking" but she won't do anything about it.
Sure, some people suffer
But corporations make bigger profits and spend money on lobbying and campaign contributions and put the friends and family of politicians on their boards.
So don't expect any change from her. You have to fight for it at the state level.
1. Any company TRYING to write code with the intention of killing/injuring the user will be sued out of existence.
2. Whichever executive ordered the techs to write such code would never work again.
3. Even if you allow a theoretical situation that bypasses #1 & #2, complex software is very difficult to write. The company (and executive and coders) would be sued out of existence when the car killed/injured the passenger to avoid running over a box of toy dolls.
And yet we keep seeing this bullshit on
The worse issue is that her server wasn't setup with a certificate. So no startTLS option.
So all the emails she sent to it were sent IN THE CLEAR.
So yeah, it seems like idiots all around this issue. None of them understood email or security or anything more than click-here-to-make-blackberry-work.
The immigration charade is a diversion.
Particularly because the majority of terrorist attacks in the USofA have been carried out by US citizens WHO WERE BORN IN THE USofA.
If you want to look at foreigners, those terrorists come here on tourism visas and such.
Very few immigrants commit any terrorist acts in the USofA.
He is responsible UNLESS the "victim" volunteered to be a victim. If the victim volunteers then the victim is responsible.
This isn't even a "robot".
That's my problem with this story.
It's 2016. We know how to make backups. And databases compress nicely so the backup won't take anywhere near as much space as the original.
Yep, it's the distance.
And whatever constitutes "teeming with aliens". Is that 10 planets per galaxy? 100? 1,000?
And the time involved. How long ago did life start on Earth? How many mass extinctions have there been? Would ANY of those have been detected by aliens on their home planet using technology equivalent to ours?
The Fermi "paradox" is based upon alien expansion. Which is, in turn, based upon tech advances that we don't have.
The galaxy could be "teeming with aliens" that we cannot detect and that we cannot reach with our technology. Nor can they detect us or reach us.
Not exactly "security done the right way".
This is mitigation.
Netflix gets the username/password list AFTER the bad guys have put it up for sale. What other bad guys have also purchased it? What other sites have you used that password on?
Running widespread password lists against your own password database is a good security practice and you are indeed helping your users much more than trying to enforce a stupid password policy.
Not really. The users will just keep modifying their passwords until they pass your checks. Then they'll have a "good" password that they'll re-use on multiple sites.
It all comes down to how the password will be cracked by the bad guys. That's why re-use is the main concern. Because that means that the bad guys only need to try ONE password for your account on other sites.
And they've scripted those attacks. They can hit thousands of sites in seconds once they have your re-used password.
That's why more secure systems use things like the RSA key fobs. So that your password CANNOT be re-used.
Yeah, it matters. Unless you really are using a hash function you probably aren't as unique as you believe.
Remember, the crackers have hundreds of millions of passwords to dig through to find patterns.
Check haveibeenpwned.com to see if your email address has already been compromised. And if so, at how many sites.
#1. But I can't remember all those passwords.
- use a password manager
#2. But I like the formula I use. It's my name + the website name.
- no. Just use a password manager
#3. How will I know that my password isn't in a dictionary list?
- use a password manager and have it generate random passwords
#4. But I cannot remember long passwords.
- use a password manager
Also, "ieatkale88" can now be cracked in the same number of tries as "iloveyou" or "pAsswOrd" because they are now all added to common dictionaries.
Once you publish your "secure" password someone will add it to a dictionary.
#1. No password re-use. Ever.
#2. Not formulaic.
#3. Not in a dictionary list.
#4. Long. I prefer 32 characters long.
You're not Dave. Who are you?