Ruling by royal decree
always ends well.
3506 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Mar 2010
I'd rather be 95% covered by a best we can get process than 10% covered whilst the boffins argue over 100%.
As long as I keep my online security better than any number of outfits who manage to get themselves hacked, I am fairly relaxed.
The time to worry is when there aren't a weekly list of breaches at companies valued at billions of dollars.
They need 500 hundred (five fucking hundred) full time employees (and the use of "FTE" seems a weasel way to smuggle another 1,000 part time employees under the radar).
500 FTEs to do what, pray tell ?
I could reduce that by 90%, by simply using email and dealing with queries properly, rather than the WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING IN 2025 insistence on a phone number with an inbuilt 30 minute wait time.
I'm no great fan of the "UK is dead and doesn't know it" school of politics as espoused by that cunt Farage and his suspiciously foreign cronies. However, it's hard not to think there is some truth in it when I read shit like this.
In the absence of a single universally accepted definition of "intelligence", I maintain my position that in order for something to be called "intelligent" it has to encompass the ability do supply misinformation as part of it's operation.
And it it can't, it is not intelligent.
This is not a value judgement. It is a simple empirical fact that as part of a *living* organisms drive to survive, the ability to misdirect is essential.
If you make an "AI" lash up that cannot tell a lie, you do not get an electronic George Washington. You get a complex machine that isn't intelligent.
I've been saying this since (checks) 1985, when I spent a term doing the non-IT bit of my degree. Grey Walter tortoises and all that.
has started refusing to answer questions about gardening because (it's words) "My programming does not allow me to assist in activities that may be harmful".
When I entered the obvious "WTF are you on about", it replied that "Certain plants have been shown to be harmful and I cannot advise on their cultivation",
Which is all very well, but it was a question about what plants are best for borders.
Which sounds fine. However, how do you apply it in cases where the terminally thick actively oppose any effort to keep them safe from themselves ?
I'd never push anyone into a gas chamber. However I am damned if I am going to let them drag me in as I try to stop them. Fuck 'em.
otherwise it's assurance.
Also, if I don't lock my front door or secure my windows, my insurer won't pay out. What evidence have these insurers (who are after all paying out with MY money) obtained that the insured did everything possible to prevent the attack ?
It's hard to avoid the feeling that (as ever) big business is getting better treatment at the expense of the little person.
It's less of an issue about your password it your systems use additional mechanisms to authenticate you.
Plus a lot of systems *should* ring fence really sensitive commands with a repeated prompt for an MFA token.
Yes it does add a bit to the clunkiness. However you have to decide how far you are willing to sacrifice security for simplicity.