Posts by Claptrap314 1500 posts • joined 23 Jan 2015
I've long assumed that the role for the distribution teams is to 1) validate that the various packages play nice together at their released versions 2) on an insane number of hardware configurations 3) without blowing up security 4) in a way that's easy for admins to deploy.
Is this fair? If so, the who is managing 2? I've worked for a couple of companies (including AMD) where I was close enough to the relevant teams to appreciate just how mind-numbing that work is.
ESPECIALLY if that use is a dev.
The build system needs to be logically isolated. All code pulled from repositories under the direct authority of the organization, and NOTHING goes into said repos without a security review. Of course, said review might be done (under contract) by outside companies for things like OS distributions.
Anything else is just Russian Roulette.
Which gets to the crux of the matter. As usual, an u$ employee is pushing a solution that works reasonably well for maybe 85% of the population as the mandatory fix for the 15% who were using superior tools DECADES ago.
The frustrations I had with elm & pine seem positively quaint when compared to the BS I am constantly faced with in newer email clients.
You are about a hundred years early on that. Prior to WWI, the Smart People decided that there would never be another crossing of the T. The T was crossed during both WWI and WWII.
Likewise, the MBT is not going to go away anytime soon. Certainly, their utility in a US-China war will likely be limited, but we've got a long ways to go before the tech reaches the point that even the bulk of regional conflicts will catch up. Moreover, the anti-anti-tank technology is ALSO advancing rapidly.
Yes, when you control everything, then your #1 problem is the #1 problem for the guys responsible to fix the problem. But it also means that you have to fund & deliver the solution all by yourself.
And if you lack the space/electrical capacity/cooling capacity to hold the new servers your need to solve the problem?
I don't know what cloud contracts typically look like, but businesses MUST seriously examine the penalty clauses to ensure that they won't get hung out to dry when the counterparty fails to deliver. I continue to be astounded by the child-like faith that companies exhibit towards each other in that regard.
But believe me, when the estimates for server load for Pokemon Go! turned out to be wrong by a factor of four, Nianic was almost certainly thrilled that it was Google scrambling to get the resources in place instead of themselves.
Small time crims steal wallets. Those with vision steal banks. But the true wise guys steal elections.
There are orders of magnitude more at stake in an election than in any particular hack of a website, including a bank. The resources concentrated on such an attack are going to be correspondingly financed, staffed, and executed.
I'm pretty certain you've missed what I'm saying. Given that someone has taken all of the other steps in an attempt to achieve privacy--how do they justify NOT using https for the final step?
Certainly, TOR + Bitcoin + mixers is high overlap. TOR + Bitcoin + mixers + HTTP, though, ??????
I am not an expert in that quirk in the law, although I am aware of it. However, even if we accept that the sheriff has some sort of broad authority independent of the state which sets the physical boundaries of that authority, it remains that the courthouse county courthouse is the property of the county _as an administrative subunit of the state_. The sheriff is as free to assert his superior jurisdiction there as he is anything else, but that does not make it the truth. Moreover, whatever authority of the sheriff has in the face of state authority is about preventing abuse of the local population by state authorities. (And, if the "No More Wacos" Act passed, also the Feds.) Sheriffs who go around saying, "I am the Law" are themselves abusing whatever authority they have, not exercising it.
Certainly--as it is true everywhere. But the claim that "the state cannot tell the county what to do" is farcical. The counties exist as administrative subdivisions of the state. When I moved to Texas, it took approval by the people of the entire state to change the form of government in any county. That was 1994. Of course, the history of Texas is peculiar, but the principle remains. Off the Eastern seaboard, the states were created first, and these states created counties so that the locals could handle their local business locally. The powers granted to the counties were (and remain) whatever the state says, and the states can change that at any time.
On which planet?
If you are a company domiciled in jurisdiction X, you will be compelled to complied with the the law in X on pain of having all "assets" in X seized--including personnel.
If you are a company doing business in jurisdiction X, you will be compelled to complied with the the law in X on pain of having all "assets" in X seized--including personnel.
If you are storing data in jurisdiction X, then you are certainly doing business with whomever owns the facility in X, at least.
If jurisdiction X and jurisdiction Y have incompatible laws you have a business decision to make. To the naive, the decision would seem to be, "Which jurisdiction do I limit all of my activities to?" The more savvy know that "Which palms do I grease?" offers more lucrative solutions.
But I really, REALLY tire of Europeans acting as if they have a right to the innovations of American businesses without the application of American law. Make your own **** Google / Apple / Facebook / whatever. The companies are too **** powerful anyway, and need their wings clipped.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure the free and open discussion of political speech in our society. Since the object of the constitution is the federal government, its provisions apply to the government. But the principle of free and open discussion is much more broad than what is statutorily permitted.
As for FB & friends, they are playing matters both ways. If they are a platform, that is, if they want the safe harbor provisions of the CDA to apply, they cannot favor some speech (barring other laws) over some other.
Today, they are talking over people I consider to be idiots. But who is the fool if I assume that I won't at some time be subjected to this same treatment?
FB is running a public accommodation. If they want safe harbor, they must permit all legal speech.
Except that the USSR was in fact never a superpower except in the minds of those who wanted to see us all reduced to the serfs of the socialist state.
Europe had exhausted itself after two devastating wars, leaving no European opposition to the USSR. But the USSR never had the resources or industrial capacity to act freely in opposition to the US. What they had was an established doctrine of deception and a closed society. Then, like the 50-man castle that held off a 1000-man siege for two years, they bluffed.
Until Reagan, the US was not certain enough of itself to fully confront the USSR. When we did, it collapsed like the house of cards it was.
And how do you detect the code that has a car perform differently when its being tested than when it's on the road? Even something as trivial as that is no mean feat to track down. There can be (and generally will be) any number of guards to limit when the "bad" code activates. Assume the attackers are smart, not stupid.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020
