Posts by Tom 13 7544 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Yes and no. You can control their screw ups through your contract. The catch is, the contract has to specify it. And how do you specify the controls when you don't know what/how they're handling the data?
Possible, but tricky. I expect most places aren't up to the challenge. And a bank is the last place I'd want experimenting with it.
No, it's not a fantasy. What it is, is the latest marketing term that's been over-hyped. Truth is, it's been around since mainframes. They've just rebranded it.
While he may be a bit too knee-jerky in rejecting it, for a bank it's not a bad posture. The key to handling it is actually in his statement about needing to understand everything. That's going to apply to your cloud facilities as well, and that may get a bit more complicated than if you run it yourself. Chances are your cloud provider is doing some stuff he regards as proprietary/trade secret and he's not going to want to discuss that. And he's going to push that he's accepting all the risks associated with meeting the SLA so all you have to worry about is the SLA. While there is some truth there, there's also truth in needing to understand his processes so you can asses for yourself whether he can meet the promised SLA.
Properly handled the cloud may be a good thing. Badly handled, it's as bad as anything you can fuck up internally.
Please take a quaalude, maybe even three.
He's making a joke and contrasting one stereotype against another. It's what people do when they want to punctuate a point. And if he's working to undo a monoculture of three piece suite types, it's exactly the counterpoint that gives the most contrast.
Yes, I am a geek and I'm weird. I wouldn't have it any other way. If you're ashamed of being weird, change. I don't care if you go full mundane or just lose the 'tude, but change.
“Make sure you understand where your data resides, make sure you understand the details of your contract, make sure you understand the security, and make sure you stay in control,” he said.
As I read that statement the first thought that I have is "are you sure he's management?" Because never were truer words spoken about building a good system from start to finish. It applies to The Cloud even more than it applies to stuff you're running internally. On stuff you're running, management might on occasion glide over some obscure details because their IT staff will have to learn it to make it work, or their IT security people will pick it up as part of a routine review. If it's in The Cloud, it's got to be spelled out in the contract, so no glossing over anything.
Definitely the Windows 10 team did the best they could to cobble together something that no longer makes the average end-user freak out.
I can't agree with that. The thing that most makes the average Windows user freak out they continue to appear to be trying to force us to subscription/cloud platforms. That's exactly what we DON'T want. This brouhaha only highlight the fact that they haven't figured that out yet.
If he is one of the lucky few who managed to get Vista to work, why should he shell out for another operating system that doesn't have much support left in it?
When Windows 10 is released those of us still running Windows 7 will once again face the option of going along with the tyrant's dictates, moving to the walled garden of Apple, or switching to open source. Given the changes in my gaming habits (only casual games and nothing that requires high end graphics), I may finally be ready to take the leap to open source after my Windows 7 PC dies/is no longer supported with updates.
Another seemingly common sense idea that in our current environment actually raises more questions than you'd think it would. I'd like to think of myself as an outlier. I'm single, live with my landlord in an undivided townhouse. Neither of us have children but we split household duties and rather unequally. We certainly aren't a family in the traditional sense. But am I really that much of an outlier in current society?
He may well be bitter. But while your points about the biological constraints are correct, they are short-lived compared to time over which his criticism is made.
Might not be quite as bad in the UK as it is in the US, but if you're a married man with a kid, the wife pretty much owns you until the kid is 18. And if she decides you are an unfit parent even though you meet pretty much everybody else's World's Best Dad definition, you're still going to lose in court. It's not pretty. It is real. I knew a fellow about 25 years back, three beautiful kids, loved his wife. She lost interest in him, divorced him, sued him for child support. Her PARENTS supported him over her. Judge ruled for her. She met a guy, moved in with him, which was also away from the guy I knew. At which point the judge's original order for joint custody was modified and he effectively lost visitation.
One of the outcomes of the radical feminist movement is that although individual members of society may attempt to reject it through their actions, in a court of law the male is a sperm donor and an ATM.
Not true. I think it is very rare for the wife by herself to decide to buy a new house/where to rent or a new car. Likewise I doubt many of them replace any of the major appliances like fridges, washing machines, dryers, ovens, stoves, heater systems, water heaters, etc. So usually at least 70% of the budget is spend before she gets her hands on the "disposable" portion of the income.
My dad on the other hand bought pretty much every power tool that came into the house without consulting her. At least one of them ran about $5000.
You might FEEL that way, but you haven't thought about it and you certainly haven't done an even rudimentary check. The Social Security Administration for the US has actual data about this:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Even at age 1, 140 more men die than women per 1000 born. The number get progressive worse from there.
Actually, you have the training part reversed. There's not a great deal of skill in bricklaying. You trowel the mortar on the brick, press it down/slide it over the correct amount, and move to the next brick. For the secretary you have to learn to type, spell, a whole bunch of grammar, run phone systems, keep calendars, and multi-task in a way a bricklayer never has to.
Now the bricklayer is pretty much hard labor whereas the secretary is not. And usually the secretary's job is fairly safe from physical harm whereas the bricklayer usually runs at least the risk of broken limbs and sometimes even death. Bricklaying may also have some seasonality to it.
I know I'd want more money for the bricklaying work than the secretary. Although if I were a secretary, I'd also want stock options.
Did you ever actually run the financials for her staying fully employed?
I'm not married and have no kids so haven't experienced it from that angle. I'm also in the US, not the UK. But I do recall quite a number of conversations with my mother about the topic. When I was born she paid for babysitters and kept her job. When my brother kept doing the same but had to keep shifting babysitters which was a lot of work. Eventually she sat down with my dad and they ran the financials. My dad was in a high income tax bracket because he was in sales and she was low to moderate because she was a secretary (what admin assistants were called back then) even if it was a medical secretary. Between what taxes took our of her check, the cost of babysitters, the cost of transportation, and the extra cost of doctors because of all that socializing at babysitters they decided she was adding $20/month to net family income. So she quit and became a stay at home mom.
Except that when the econometric studies are done, they invariably show equal or better pay for women than they do for men when all variables are considered. Tim does a very good job of dancing around this point to support the fully debunked 77% statistic. The number only arises when you aggregate ALL women vs ALL men and ignore actual hours worked and years in the field variables.
Commenting without reading again I see. Tim addressed precisely this point when he noted that as current "supplies" diminish the price goes up. Increasing prices coupled with increasing creativity yield increased production which replenishes supplies.
I believe Tim's money quote was that just in the ocean we have more supplies of the supposedly limited resources than we could consume at 10 times our current population. What we don't have at the moment is an economical way to separate them out.
No, even his population projections are wrong by an order of magnitude. The problem with his predictions, one frequently made by futurists of all stripes, is one of project continuously without inflection points. On population he ignored evidence that as you develop a population that can feed itself and cure disease the birthrate drops precipitously for 8-12 per family to 2 or lower.
His projections about food production were likewise completely backwards and even more inexplicable given his population prediction. Following a straight line projection on food would have significantly altered his "The End is Near/Back off man I'm a scientist" schtick.
No, the reason we haven't seen the massive extinction of species in the rainforests is that like the AWG alarmists, those so-called scientists didn't have any clue about real biology either.
If I've understood Lovecraft correctly, Ehrlich is as far as it is possible to get from Eldritch. The Eldritch are supposed to understand how everything really works. The only thing Ehrlich seems to understand is how to fleece a paycheck from a publisher. Not even sure he actually understood how to get tenure. That seems to be something he lucked into.
Yes, they do or they go out of business.
Verizon specified they did not have the "right of way" which means it is completely unrelated to the cost of the connection. Sounds more like your landlord was trying to gouge Verizon for something he should have provided for free.
You'd lose when Verizon challenged it in court. And for precisely the reasons that they laid out in their rebuttal. They'll produce all the paperwork showing they have cabled the streets and the roadblocks are either the shared buildings or NYC government itself cutting the red tape lengthwise to stop Verizon from meeting their contract. At which point the citizens of NYC would likely also out the cost of the court case plus the fees for Verizon's lawyers.
Verizon? Probably. Whether or not any of them were assigned to this project is another question.
NYC? Not a chance.
Given the answer about NYC, the odds on the second part of the Verizon answer are greatly diminished.
While I have no great love of Verizon, the most annoying thing about their rebuttal (or at least the parts El Reg printed) is that it is 100% true.
Sure there is and anybody claiming otherwise is talking out their ass.
Operational security is affected by the bad guys knowing what you are/can do. The number of planes sets a limit on what you are/can do. While "how much does it cost" doesn't give you as accurate data as a property report saying the FBI has 115 Cessna planes, after taking into account personnel costs, fuel, and maintenance, it gives you a pretty good idea of how many planes they have. Maybe you'll think they have 110 or 120 instead of the proper 115, but it's still enough to adjust your planning.
While that is obviously the problem, the solution is not quite so easy as it might seem. The problem when you have a group of highly skilled people working in a specialized area is that once you lose them (in this case from firing them) you can never reassemble the team. Each of them has had to go and find new work. And even if you did approach them and offered them their old salary plus inflation with full reinstatement of seniority plus a 10% signing bonus, they'd have to be nuts to trust you again. So you now have to build that expertise from scratch even if you insource the work.
The problem is not so much with the fines as with how they are assessed. We invented the corporation to limit liability so that, if I wanted to invest say 5,000 pounds in RBS, that 5,000 pounds would be the limit of my liability (I wouldn't lose my house or retirement fund). Likewise we've limited the damages an officer of the corporation can suffer. The problem is that we've extended that protection too far. While it is reasonable to offer officers some protection against what Donald Rumsfeld called unknown unknowns, we've extended it not only to known unknowns, but even known knowns. If the fines for this were applied to the officers of the corporation they could have a salutary affect.
No, no. They have the filter that checks for the misplaced comma. It runs a vm that logs the results and that's all that vm does. However the guy who normally archives the logs was fired downsized rightsized retired last week. As a result the vm crashed when it could no longer write the log file. This in turn cause the ingest failure.
"Rates of phone fraud are similar across economically developed countries, regardless of security regulations and legislation in place," the report states.
Laws are quite useless when the local cops are unwilling to try to enforce them. About a year ago we were being called so aggressive I called them and offered to work with them to catch these guys. They weren't interested.
As for the current report, I suspect their numbers are low. In the last two days my roommate and I have both gotten calls on the house land line: "Hello, this is Microsoft support calling."
While I concur with your sentiment that England has finally chosen steady hands, it is obvious you don't read the comments here very often. El Reg is filled with exactly the sort of leftists who eat up this leftist claptrap. Especially when it comes from someone claiming to be right-wing but rational.
It is actually all claptrap. Keynesian economics was shot dead with a double-barreled shotgun on the watch on one James Earle Carter. The signs and portends had been visible since one Richard Milhous Nixon famously proclaimed "We are all Keynsians now," but no one wanted to admit it. But with both unemployment and inflation headed for the stratosphere, Keynes' economic theory was quite, quite dead. it survives only because it gives leftists license to do things that can't be done in the real world, so they won't let it die. Chief amongst his lies is that government spending increases economic output and that's at the heart of everything Tim wrote here. So they keep propping him up like the Soviets propped up Lenin for 50 years after he was a corpse.
You'll get better responsiveness when everyone actually shares the burden of government equally. What we have instead is a system in which almost half the people bear no burden for government and that half insists that the half that does doesn't bear the burden.
While I admit the idea of prohibiting deficit spending, I believe it has to be there for true emergencies. The problem is, too many foreseeable expenditures keep getting classified as "emergencies". Until we have more honest pols there's no law that will get us out of our conundrum. Yeah, I know. They'll be selling ice water on all levels of Hell except the one that's looking for hot tea before that happens.
Yeah, if you don't get into one of these jobs pretty much straight out of college, you're screwed on answering the questions. If you do, you just keep a copy of your last form to update them.
Although I will say that when I had to reconstruct some of those questions for some job interviews, the internet was scary good at digging up the answers for me. I could actually reconstruct my housing record all the way back through college.
Who says they exceeded plausible rate limits? Some of the reports I've read claim they traced the breach as far back as December 2014.
What if the account compromised was an system admin level account? You know, the ones where you're expected to move the databases around as you reconfigure things.
It's not clear whether the data was encrypted or not. If the data is encrypted on the drive, but uses an access account to decrypt the data and you compromise an access account, the data is still yours for the taking. That's largely the way the industry works these days with everything pushing to single log on authentication.
No it's not. The compromised data wasn't part of surveillance. It was collected specifically to do security clearances; to prove who you are and that you don't have any obvious weak links. That is, it isn't simply surveillance, it's been narrowed and refined. Indeed the biggest problem NSA and the rest of the mass surveillance people have is that there is too much data to easily produce usable information. Anyone trying to raid your one stop honey pot faces the same problem the surveillance agencies do, except not being state actors they are less likely to have the available resources to process the data.
Lame arguments like this make the whole "no mass surveillance" crowd look like the tinfoil hat brigade. Use some logic instead of grooving on your latest hate meme.
There is no money in a software house rewriting the software on spec
Transparent bollocks. If the server is going away and you're in the industry and no one else rewrites the software while you do, you move first and kill their markets. Yes, you might need some vc capital to do so, but that's totally doable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
