Posts by Pascal Monett 18232 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
And not only are they complaining, but they're bringing in a lawyer. Way to demonstrate how little faith you have in His Clairvoyant Vision And Impartial Justice. </sarcasm>
Then again, I would hardly be surprised if they were right.
Finally a voice of sanity in an ocean of madness.
We've seen what a disaster 3D has become - the first time you see a 3D film you may be amazed, the 10th you're bored out of your mind. Why ? Because all they do at the moment is tack 3D cheap thrills onto a 2D story - nobody is making 3D mean something.
This is finally someone who is looking through the right end of the looking glass and searching for something that can be done with the technology, not just how to shoehorn it into yet another stupid film.
I now have hope that future entertainment will actually be different in some ways, instead of being a bunch of gimmicks bolted onto an archaic frame. Majestic, to be sure, but archaic nonetheless.
Then again, the steering wheel isn't getting any younger, now is it ?
If you have to create a special lingo for including security into your development process, I think you're just highlighting the problem right there.
There should be no DevSecOps. It should be just plain old DevOps, because security shouldn't be anything special to the process - it should be right in the middle of the process. At all times.
If the only thing to worry about is company financials, then the technical side is looking rather good.
Of course, I'm not saying there is no problem. If Amazon folds, there will be major chaos in many companies and that will translate into losing money - probably a lot of money.
On the other hand, with that risk in mind, if Cloudageddon does happen, I think there will be a linup of companies at Amazon's door with checkbook in hand to tide things over until stability can be found again - or at least until they can extract their data and move to (gulp) Azure.
After all, from a business standpoint, what is worse : upping the IT cost by a factor of two or three, or closing shop ?
The only thing I see that is really a risk here is that, if the financials fail, it will likely be sudden. I'm not sure that Accounting is all that Agile.
The whole problem with this issue is that, as I have already said, the politicians will always cater to public whim, and if the public is unaware, the politician will drum up the interest - but only if he is paid for it (by lobbying, of course).
The issue with security in general, and encryption in particular, is that the public is completely apathetic at this point in time, and the lobbyists are working hard to keep it that way - meaning that politicians have no incentive to step up to the plate.
It is going to take a series of hardships directly impacting masses of people for "the masses" to wake up and demand a change in sufficient numbers to override the current lobby efforts of companies for whom security is a direct hit to their current slurp policy.
They don't and they never will.
This whole thing is a scam and the CEO is going to disappear with all the money as soon as he's met his personal target of however many millions he wants to bilk.
The company started three weeks ago, and it give it nine more before it folds. Any more than that, and the scam risks becoming too blatant even for the gullible.
Given that the only countries in the world that are conducting these trials happen to be the ones with the biggest overall military budget, I think that the "bad guys" are going to have a bit of trouble fielding thousands of automated anythings.
Unless we're talking about Russia or China, in which case, maybe.
But North Korea ain't gonna be automating anything any time soon, that's or sure.
Um, if I remember correctly, there was no chance of litigation since IBM did not bother to protect anything via copyright. It was a truly open market.
That's why IBM attempted a market takeover with the PS/2 when it realized how the market was shifting - except that it didn't work for various reasons, but mainly because there was no point, technically speaking.
Avoiding litigation with IBM concerning the PS/2 was definitely a concern, though, which is why the PS/2 is dead and the PC lives on.
I am warming to the idea that the layperson, to use the OA's qualifier, is not the person to explain security to. If an entire generation of people could not learn to set the time on their VCRs (slightly exaggerated, I know), it is unreasonable to expect their offspring to understand the stakes in our security-lacking world of today.
Security needs a major shift into companies baking the security into their products and making it easy to use despite the user's cluelessness. Not an easy task given the lack of security awareness in companies at this point in time, but one that will become feasible after enough finger-pointing and IoT-based DDoS attacks.
So we're basically going towards a more security-friendly world one DDoS at a time.
Not a surprise.
I started my computer experience in 1986, with MS-DOS 1.0. Folders didn't exist until 2.1.
I have had time to ease into each new functionality, learn its interest and how it works. I worked with Windows 1.0 and every iteration after until 7.
At the same time, I witnessed the rise of Internet connectivity and, in parallel, malware and spam. Learning how to manage mail, and avoid virus traps is an ongoing process.
I truly pity those who have to learn it all in one go today.
I know Sean Connery has made some interesting films on that subject, but I think you're giving thieves waayy too much credit.
Most likely scenario when they get in and trip the alarm is they run like hell away from the place and set their sights on a "softer" targer - one without an alarm system.
Because thieves are not in it for the thrill, they just want easy money without hassle. It's a business, and you don't take uneccessary risks. Why bother with a well-protected house when there are so many that are so much easier to get into ?
Nope, wrong. It's going to be a very small group of people who have the habit of making arbitrary decisions without any regard for transparency, disclosure or even their own procedures who will decide.
And when you tell them just how wrong their decision is, they just look at you as if you are crazy and declare that the decision is right because they decide it is. And the absolutely unbelievable thing is that they are still not in jail for contempt of the Human race.
What could possibly go wrong ?
An interesting bit of information, given that a fair proportion of parents I know take absolutely no care to put their children to bed before that time.
So basically, most people agree that swearing on the telly is bad before a given time, then let their kids up late enough so that they can hear it anyway.
<sigh>
The point you're not getting, Tim, is that saying "all they need to do" is exactly like saying "if she got raped it's her fault for being dressed like that".
Women should not need to do anything to get a job other than present their CV and competence, just like guys.
And it's up to us guys to make it so that happens, not up to women to pretend to be guys to get a job.
He didn't say it was ok, he just acknowledged that the article's author realized what a dipwad he had been.
I had the same burning rage to post a scathing comment on how women shouldn't have to hide their gender in any way to get a job and that was not what equality was about. I also deflated somewhat when I read his apology in the last part.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and here I think someone has realized that he may have been talking with the best of intentions, but he blew it in a major way.
The point now is to get men to focus on what matters : the competence of the person their are interviewing, not the presence or absence of curves just below the collar line.
Coincidentally, I am currently conducting interviews for a training position for a customer. The job is to train people in Windows and MS Office. My criteria for getting an interview is : you have experience training people in Windows and Office. I have received dozens of CVs from people who do not have that experience on their CV. I don't care which gender they are, they're not getting the job. I try to avoid looking at the personal details until I have gone through the experience section in order to avoid bias. When I have an opinion on the CV, then I check who it is and where they live (because someone on another continent won't be available to start mid-October - and yes, this has happened more than once).
when basic human decency has to be enforced by law.
A telecoms contract is not a debt, it is a service. If the person is dead, it is blindingly obvious that the service can no longer be used and the contract is null and void as of the date of death.
But basic human decency and Capitalism are two entirely different things.
Um, she did what she was told to do.
If all my users did what they were told, my life would be easier because all I would have to do would be take care in how I told them to do something. Instead, like everyone here I suppose, I tell them to do one thing, they do something entirely different, then they come back and complain that what I told them didn't work.
Citation, please ?
Germany is the one country in this world that is dead against state surveillance and with good reason : there are people alive today that have witnessed what that brings about.
The unfortunate point is that there are not enough people like that, but apparently there soon will be, given the current trends.
So fret not, Citizens. In thirty or forty years there will be enough people to remember that it is not the People that should fear the Government, but the Government that should fear the People.
The only downside is the unknown number of disappearances that will happen in between...
Yeah, great idea : let's connect everything to the Hive Mind and let that sort out our security.
Forget doors, locks, windows . . . hell, forget walls while we're at it. Let's just hand it all over to the AI God and everything will be fine.
Here's a tip : when you want security, make sure you don't depend on someone else for it. A hardware firewall will give you better security than any remote AI will ever bring you.
Good Lord, to think there was a time when I thought all those people quoted in journal articles actually knew what they were talking about.
No problem, bro. We'll check them when the hardware become available.
Then we'll see exactly where you stand.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, even if the actual performance is only divided by five, I'm not going to complain. Technology is a complex thing, and this is just about as close to rocket science as you can get without working for NASA or SpaceX, so I'm willing to cut them some slack if the figures aren't exactly what they said they would be.
Hell, four times faster instead of five would still be a win in my book.
Governments respond most readily to what the public wants. If someone in government really wants something to happen, he will attempt to drum up public interest in order to justify acting on it.
So the problem is that people basically don't care, and nobody in government is being paid to care.
Simple, really.
Okay, yeah, arrgh, piracy, yarrrr, etc..
But hang on a minute, they file a complaint in California against a company in Germany.
I would have thought they would have to file in Germany. Okay, I know, Americans, but still : the judge is going to throw it out on the basis that the USA does not have jurisdiction over Germany, right ?
We've already had that kind of nonsense over the LHC some dimwit filed a complaint against and that was the result. Can it be any different this time ?
NTIA doesn't need to do anything. In a perfect world, IoT tat will use its IPv6 addresses and we will stay behind out NAT firewall on IPv4, which still works perfectly thank you very much.
What I want is the assurance that any IoT piece of shite that might somehow find its way into my house won't ever be able to connect to the Internet without my express authorization. The fact that I have disabled WiFi is a good first step, in my opinion, but I'd appreciate if my ISP could give me a router with a specific "forbid IoT tat access" setting, or at least some form of authorization on a per-IP basis.
Remind me one thing : .Net is a Microsoft product, right ?
So you're telling me that Microsoft created an update to its OS that knackered one of its own products and couldn't be bothered to find that out in the test phase ?
Does Microsoft really not have a test phase any more ?
I can understand knackering Norton or Avira, everyone gets a kick out of that, but your own product ?
Maybe you should be a little bit less Agile and a bit more thorough ?
"Actually hate Windows 1 0" - welcome to the club.
Whenever I hear that question, I always think of the cashier lady who responded by picking up her microphone and making a public message to the effect of "if anyone knows who this person is, could they please come and tell him".
I don't know if it's a meme, an urban legend (probably), or just a joke, but I love the idea.
If this company is supposed to hire people to work on National Defense projects and need to be vetted and cleared for high-level security, is it all that surprising that the company tended to not consider applicants from outside the country ? Especially these days, in the current global climate of suspicion and racial hatred that permeates the news continually.
And saying that the pool of applicants was >70% Asian does not mean that the people hired should have included 70% of Asians. That is not a criteria.
All this IoT malarky is going to have to tighten up, and this kind of massive screwup is just the thing needed to bring big guns to make it happen.
IoT makers do not care if a consumer gets his kit hacked, but if a Google or major ISP gets into the legal game with a valid claim that the IoT maker did not do its due diligence in preventing massive communication disruption, that might start turning a few heads.
Likewise, it is impossible to use a lawsuit to prevent Joe User from getting his PC infected, but it is quite easy to demonstrate that equipment made by a specific company is the source of a problem.
I'm hoping this will happen and shake things up in the dismal security landscape of IoT.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
