Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 10:49 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:09:21 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> >> > It's hard to give up the cop >> > business after doing it for so long. >> >> Yep, therein lies the whole problem, along with the extremely fine >> distinction between legitimately policing world security and bullying. > >Part of the problem I suspect is that the USA is now addicted to pushing >foreigners around. > If that were true, you would have been trampled by now. Not your country... just you, DonkTARD!
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 10:48 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egt6gf$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <YMGdneF6_b_XZa3YnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egqd8f$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> If checking for any possible error condition, then assuming >>> that an unreported error can occur and coding to handle all >>> of the above plus whatever is left over is not excessive >>> precautions, then I don't what excess is. >> >>If you took excessive precautions then I question the business sense in >>your >>actions. > > You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay > up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It > was a requirement to have certain uptimes. If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system needs 99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that. If it only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different. Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted money. I may be using a different definition of excessive than you. >>Taking the correct level of precaution is the only plan with long >>term viability. > > And what is the correct level of precaution if the system > is the one keeping your airplane up in the air wihout tailspins. What ever is required to keep it in the air. Taking precautions against the system being immersed in water at 100m depth is excessive. Can you see the difference? As an example from an Industry I know better than airframes. If you are protecting assets worth ?1,000,000 then spending ?1,200,000 on security _is_ excessive yet I know companies which do this (the main one which springs to mind is US company but it is not soley Americans who do this). Everything has an inherent risk which has to be tolerated. Excessive precautions are wasted time and money. I am not arguing against taking the appropriate measures, just that the claims of "100% paranoia" are jingoistic and dont really hold up to scrutiny. >>Personally, depending on the criticality of the system you are talking >>about >>I would say what you suggest may, or may not be, excessive. > > It was not. AAMOF, our precautions wouldn't be enough in today's > biz. Today's computing business takes 7x24 uptime for granted. Well, most web servers use a "rule of nines" for uptime with 99.999% being about the gold standard but I see what you mean. That said, the precautions taken must reflect the business, for example do the webservers meeting 99.999% uptime get tested for operation (to go back to a previous example) underwater at 100m depths? It is never, ever, going to be possible to anticipate every situation. A business model which works defines the normal working practices and determines what precautions have to be taken for that. From there, depending on cost and time constraints other precautions can be built in. As a real world example, I was in Washington last year and I went to an ATM to get some cash out. The screen of the ATM had an MS Windows VBScript runtime error popup and nothing was working. You would think this was a 24/7 system, yet it had failed. >> >>Also, on a terminology issue, checking for "any possible error condition" >>is >>rarely achievable. > > You don't know what I'm talking about. Obviously not, as the terminology you used was either inaccurate or you are claiming the impossible. Please, feel free to elaborate. >> >>> I supposed >>> keeping the system from being powered up to prevent crashes >>> is excessive but not very useful. >> >>I would describe it as excessive. It is why being 100% paranoid rarely >>makes >>sense in a business environment. > > We were in the business of manufacturing computer systems for customers > and not the feel-good consumer marketing business. Which makes it less likely that 100% paranoid would make sense. When business write a statement of requirements they are often very specific about the security aspects. If you go wildly beyond this then you are, effectively, doing unpaid work and should have negotiated a better contract. No organisation is 100% protected which is why security risk management exists.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 10:54 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:2kh4j21b6a1d7p4joqtb0af2rp446fhoet(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:35:15 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>In reality, something you rarely come into contact with, when I typed up >>my >>message I spelt the word much worse and the spell checker tried to >>helpfully >>correct it. My typo was due to lax attention to the options provided. > > > A likely story. Nice try, T Weak. Whatever. It is all you have to cling to, so who am I to take it away from you.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 10:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45322AD2.4832315E(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>> >> >>>>I currently work in providing security advice to companies and in my >> >>>>experience, while there is some basis for the "paranoia" approach, >> >>>>most >> >>>>of the time it does not make sound business advice. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Do you even know what the term "COMSEC" means? >> >> >> >>Yes, although it is a term that the Americans use more than British >> >>people. >> > >> > Not true. >> >> Very true. In the UK it is more commonly called INFOSEC, which is another >> American term. > > IT Security really. Yes, much more common to call it that. We[tinw] in the UK rarely use SEC as security (ITSy is the normal term). JoeBloe demonstrates a lack of understanding about things beyond his immediate world contact. (Which still appears to stem from airport novels.)
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 11:06
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egt5lk$8u0_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <b972j2hg5vph0kft82futt7v3sd8r5penb(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:43:04 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've had to > work hard to >>>get to that position. >> >>From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and >>Japan and Africa don't count, apparently. > > Nor the eastern countries of Europe. While I don't agree with the rest of the world loathes the US argument, it is undeniable that most countries in the world have a low opinion of "America" (as an entity) and it's actions on the world stage. |