There are many times in history that are a turning point. A time when there is enough people with enough resources to call forth action that will impact millions more. The time to focus on these things is always, but with limited time it becomes something that's brushed aside until a point that people see that action must be taken. They seek a solution and the seek salvation in leaders who act as if they know what to do.
I don't think I'd want to watch a video with such atrocious bitrates, even if it was SD.
Luckily, video streams generally use H.264 compression so your bandwidth usage is substantially lower than the bitrate going to your display.
Of the firms I've worked for, only the large ones (>$20B/yr) that depend heavily on IT had a dedicated in-house incident response team. Smaller shops ($5-20B) or those that rely less on IT would outsource it. Small enterprises with a 1-5 man security team probably have just a written plan that's never tested. Anything under $1B/yr in revenue probably doesn't have a security team at all unless they are an Internet-based company.
Corporate use is inspection of traffic to detect security breaches, but Service Provider use is surveillance?
Use of wildcard certs is one thing, but BlueCoat technology isn't designed for surveillance any more than network analysis tools are.
All you need to do is read Cisco's documentation to learn about their backdoors.
But the foolish design thing here was having the machine know the outcome of the ticket before it prints (or even at all).
By law, individual machines generally need to maintain a guaranteed payout rate. As a result, they need to know whether the player will win or not. When the numbers are computer-generated, then it can be exploited via software. If it's a roll of tickets it is distributing, then the roll is already configured with a specific payback rate.
We're depopulating Syria to steal the oil.
Better then to slaughter tens of thousands to steal the oil. Seems like either way, we steal the oil.
We're taking over the holy land on behalf of Jews.
Hey, if Jews want to go and live in an Islam Caliphate, more power to them.
We're forcing our western culture on hapless Syrians.
Yep, nothing more forced than granting voluntary relocation outside of a warzone which might, you know, result in them being exposed to other cultures.
Hell, as some point they'll call it slavery.
They'll call it slavery and the people will live and work freely. Or we continue the air strikes and leave ISIS to behead and every day they live in fear.
Thousands and thousands of hours of MSM hand wringing over the conditions inside immense tent cities
...
Because God knows we couldn't build houses. Let's do the math. 6.5 million refugees times $30,000/home* (in many rural areas of the US) == $195 billion. Hey, that's only ~2 years worth of Iraq wars. And we give a lot of people homes. Meanwhile, MSM will hand wring over everything. They'll do 129 separate stories, one on each victim, just to get more ad revenue. So it goes.
... and indignant libtards demanding we bankrupt ourselves to "fix" it.
Compared to what? Air strikes? Bombings? We've already spent much more in war to "fix" it and done nothing of the sort. How about we do something constructive instead of destructive. And for once in history, it might be actually be cheaper.
*PS - Feel free to play around with the numbers (obviously, a lot of families make the numbers more plausible, as you're not really giving each refugee a home). Consider the solution involves many countries taking in refugees, not merely one nation. But even if it were only one, say France, it's doable. Sure it could turn into a clusterfuck with tent cities. But that speaks of a government unwilling to commit to a plan or even having a plan at all. That's why Katrina was such a clusterfuck. It wasn't the Hurricane. Yet government can in competence build out massively. See the Marshall Plan . See China and their city building.
IS is one of the largest threats to our way of life in the west, but we are thinking too small when we think of ways to combat it.
You're right. We think too small. The answer is clear. While we talk and talk about the evil of ISIS and the refugees and the "need" to vet these people. we leave 6.5 million+ Syrians at the mercy of Assad or ISIS or Russian bombings or US bombings or French bombings. We're all being monsters to these people. The death of 129 Parisians is nothing compared to the horror that we sit and watch and act helpless to stop. We debate and discuss and debate some more. We think too small. The answer is clear.
We don't vet the refugees. We don't let in a mere 10,000 "vetted" Syrians. We let in 6.5 million+ Syrians. We begin the largest known evacuation possible. We put the Army and the Navy to the best use we can, to protect and transport civilians. We deprive ISIS and Assad of the very thing they want, fodder for their abuse and subjects of their subjugation. And when there's invariable terrorists in the mix and they come here? We rejoice. Because here the abuse will not be tolerated. Here the death numbers in the hundreds, not in the tens of thousands. Here we do more to end the terrorism of the many and give ISIS and Assad an empty hellhole to squat in over the few who would actual want such a thing. It's a Pyrrhic victory for them. It is freedom and justice for the people.
The thing I don't like about the public cloud is the real possibility for permanent vendor lock-in, IBM mainframe style.
What many people don't realize is that this is why OpenStack is so popular. As cloud providers "standardize" on the OpenStack platform and APIs (except for AWS, which doesn't do it because they are the 900 lb gorilla in the market), they become interchangeable by nature. The common denominator for compatibility is how your provisioning and migration engine interfaces with the cloud provider. And if you're based on the OpenStack API, then you can basically migrate or provision your workloads on any provider that supports that API - no lock-in. All you need to do is update DNS to point to your new hosting provider and you're in business.
Case in point, the NASA shuttle avionics system. CMMI level 5 certified software development program, track record of 2 Sev-1 defects per year during development.
Timeline Analysis and Lessons Learned (see page 7/slide 6) You'll find that there were hundreds of unknown latent Sev-1 defects (potentially causing loss of payload and human life) and even ~150 defects 15 years after the program started.
The question isn't whether your team is capable or willing to fix the issue, you must acknowledge that there is nearly 100% certainty that there are unknown vulnerabilities in any software you write. The question goes back to whether a bug bounty program will ever cross the inflection point of a ROI chart.
Its sad to see these scientists cry fowl, controversy, and blasphemy at dissenters . Isn't science supposed to have opposing views, with fact-based research on multiple view points using the "scientific method" for cross-checking each-others work?
'How dare you! I have a right to my opposing view, no matter how ill-informed or incomplete or intentionally agenda-driven wrong it is! How dare you point out the flaws! How dare you engage in the "scientific method"! Why, I'll just claim your engaging in the "scientific method" is not engaging in the "scientific method"!'
And this is why I can't take you seriously. You're the one with your head in dogma.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A black panther is really a leopard that has a solid black coat rather then a spotted one.
