The problem with giving options regarding security is that sometimes the people who are responsible for setting up those, forget about "convenience versus security", or they get pressured by other groups to "forget" about that balance, and makes a lapse of judgement.
We could, by laws and software, enforce a certain standard of security for organizations. The question is how liable you should be for that. Would have to consider many variables like size of company, importance of information and such.
Presumably most people don't build their own desktop computers (think offices and alike) and those usually use the stock coolers that come with the CPU. At least in my experience.
A company focusing on one thing will always beat a company "focusing" on a hundred things. Noctua basically focuses on various cooling components, and only that sector, meaning they have deep expertise in that. Intel I can't even begin to list how many different things they are doing, while their main focus is processors. They have deep expertise in processors, but you can't expect them to be able to beat a single-purpose company like Noctua at their own game.
Granted, single-focus vs multi-focus is not the only factor, as sometimes multi-focus companies prove to us, but it is a great factor.
I don't like it either. I got good news for you and bad news. The good news is that emoji usage seems higher in open source/side-projects than in professional environments. The bad news is that yes, some people, even professionally, do use emojis instead of words. It is horrible, but I'm afraid it's only gonna get more popular as the population of young people become... Not young and joins the professional workforce.
Are you claiming that "young" people can't join the professional workforce? Are they joining some other, "unfessional" workforce? Is there an age limit at which you're Old(tm) and then are able to be a true professional?
Java doesn't make exploitable RCEs more or less possible than any other programming language. Or do you have something to back this up beyond the common "Java be bad" trope?
Comparing Java Serialization with $language Serialization, and the usage of both of the languages, does Java have more RCEs per line written than $language? Or is it just a function of its popularity?
The java ecosystem has a frustrating habbit of solving problems with java's lack of expressiveness with layers of expression and templating languages, and has had some nasty RCE's as a result. (see: OGNL, freemarker)
I don't know if it's better or worse than other languages but let's not pretend it's not a problem.
I mean, the stars in this visualization are not real, they are "virtual" in the sense that they are a digital replication of something real in our computers.
You're right, it's probably a typo. But the typo at least doesn't make the title incorrect, just changes the focus a bit. Most things in our computers are "virtualized".
Edit: seems people are thinking that this comment is trying to "correct" something. It's not. It was a failed attempt to bring humor to a typo that might as well not be incorrect. No need to further try to prove how socially inept I am.
You don't need to prepend the "I mean," to the first sentence of your post, unless you're under the impression that most of your introductions will not be perceived as genuinely yours.
And I don't believe that this kind of obsession with being technically correct will lead to great social outcomes.
The "I mean" is added to give an informal tone instead of a "Here is a correction since you are incorrect" tone. Obviously it wasn't enough.
> And I don't believe that this kind of obsession with being technically correct will lead to great social outcomes.
There is no such obsession. It's a joke, meant in jest. I'm confirming that parent is correct, and that I'm just being nitpicky for the sake of giving the title a meaning even if it's incorrect.
Granted, in real-life social situations, it's easier to spot when people are joking, in comparison to online text-only comments. Especially when the place where you leave the comment is particularly famous for being dry.
Right or wrong, I find it fascinating to watch language evolve like this and it's really apparent most in internet comments. I see so many sentences starting with "I mean" over the last couple of years where I can't remember it being commonplace before.
"For sure" is another sentence starter I've noticed, then there are terms like "on trend" which now seems to mean fashionable or popular.
I'd love to do a ngram analysis of this phenomena (?), or maybe just something simple with elastic search on Reddit comments where you can see how the use of search terms grows and evolves.
This is a chain letter which I received from Peter Baumbach a little while
ago. I know that all of you don't know me, but if you don't then you probably
know Bill "Wadd" Waddington, who was here helping me think of names to whom
to send this. This letter is the infamous ARPA-net chain letter which
caused much havoc a few years ago on the ARPA-net. I think that it's pretty
dead by now, but I just can't help but to send it along.
Speaking about accessibility, who came up with that name "magic number"? It's already an overloaded term with multiple meanings and even has one negative one (for constants that has seemingly "magic" meaning or not a fully understood one).
Even something like "contrast ratio" would be immediate to come up with, and much better name as it actually says something on the tin.
> Hey Pete, what is the magic number for our color scheme in article body text?
Makes no sense... Replace "magic number" with "contrast ratio" and suddenly it does make sense.
Contrast ratio is not a good name to describe this concept. A contrast ratio is a decimal number, while a "magic number" is an ordinal value. Also, a contrast ratio has a clear definition from WCAG perspective, and it would be even more confusing to use the same term for two very related topics (magic numbers are based on WCAG contrast ratios).
"Magic number" is not good either, for the reasons you've mentioned. But while doing my research for this topic, I couldn't find any better alternative, nor did I want to come up with my own term. I think this topic is niche enough, so we don't have to overthink it.
> Why should MS in the US somehow respond to a request from police department in Cuxhafen in Germany?
If a non-US company does business in the US, most people would expect the business to also answer to US law enforcement. You can't just operate in a business and not follow the law of that country. Same applies the other way around, you do business as a US company in Germany, you better follow German law. Hence companies tend to have HQ in one country, and then subsidiaries in other countries, who know how the local market and laws work.
That's the point though. MS US headquarters is not responding to these requests. MS {local country} branch is responding. And I'm sure the people that work in country X know how to contact country X's police.
This is really a non issue being blown up in to some unsolvable conundrum by people in this conversation that want to find problems in using a phone book.
So much phishing potential in the links below. I know every GP surgery in the UK that uses a windows server is accessible online and Shodan can give away so much information, lets hope people like Cisco and netgear dont have any zero days.
One could make the same argument of any computer system where the security wasn't as tight as one could hope.
"But judge, they never patched their $software to the latest version, so technically the software allowed me to dump the contents of the IMAP server"
Intents matter. If you commit a crime ("Stealing" is a crime), it doesn't matter if you did so via software, contracts, smart contracts, blockchain or else. A crime is a crime is a crime.
We could, by laws and software, enforce a certain standard of security for organizations. The question is how liable you should be for that. Would have to consider many variables like size of company, importance of information and such.