NeutronBoy

StackExchange it costs you to downvote someone.

On Reddit, downvoting just encourages group-think as you will get downvoted for voicing an unpopular opinion.

If you're traveling at high speeds and relying on this timing to adjust flight control surfaces, or trying to use radar to get position of combatants and/or the ground, a few microseconds clock skew would be a major issue.

You could just bookmark the thread...

Because someone would have filed a bug on Bugzilla arguing for it to be removed on moralistic grounds I bet.

I'm all for having principles, but you have to accept that it'll break for your users.

Originally linked in this thread [1] by floatrock

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11238640

Outside of Silicon Valley, it's not so cut and dry.

Both Reddit and 4chan have demonstrated exceptionally well why this is a terrible idea.

I mean, if you want to test Windows, spin up a VM or VPS on any number of providers. But that's not really what we're talking about here.

> Benson Leung, a Google engineer, and Dieter Bohn, executive editor at The Verge, wound up frying their notebooks after plugging in USB cables they bought at Amazon. Leung's laptop, a Chromebook Pixel, wouldn't boot afterward. Bohn told me his notebook, a MacBook Air, no longer has working USB ports.

What if they said "Please don't take one if you took one yesterday?" Would you still take it?

> As long as for-profit companies are running the reactors, they’ll end up saving everywhere

Right, because government never cheaps out on massive infrastructure projects...

Selective quoting FTW! It devolves into a he-said/she-said conversation.

> "Google has no ability to facilitate unlocking any device that has been protected with a PIN, Password, or fingerprint," [Android’s security chief, Adrian Ludwig] wrote. "This is the case whether or not the device is encrypted, and for all versions of Android."

Also note it talks about being able to unlock phones without full encryption. Which yes, understandable. But I'm interested in specifics at the level that we've been talking about with iPhones - eg, on phones with appropriate TPMs (like the new Nexus devices), is it possible to bypass?

EDIT: Reading the source post [1] more, it notes that

- Google has no ability to facilitate unlocking any device that has been protected with a PIN, Password, or fingerprint. This is the case whether or not the device is encrypted, and for all versions of Android.

- Google also does not have any mechanism to facilitate access to devices that have been encrypted (whether encrypted by the user, as has been available since Android 3.0 for all Android devices, or encrypted by default, as has been available since Android 5.0 on select devices).

- There are some devices that have been configured to use a "pattern" to unlock. Until Android L, "pattern" unlock did provide a recovery option with the Google account. This recovery feature was discontinued with Android L.

- The lost pattern recovery feature never applied to PIN or Password so if you are on an earlier model device and don't want to use the pattern recovery feature, you can switch to a PIN or Password and it will be disabled.

[1] https://plus.google.com/+AdrianLudwig/posts/JFPXLnV3M2f

Do you have any references for further reading on the Android side of things?

That is super impressive. The video of the robot walking around in the snow, and multiple times almost falling over but righting itself, exactly how a human would...

> Looks great. But it makes me really wonder why somebody is doing Google's job.

The same could then be said of any mobile app used to browse HN or Reddit I guess.

> The video simplifies everything down to the equivalent of shouting your private message across a room when encryption is absent, which it certainly isn't.

Uh, if you're on wifi or a mobile connection, depending on the configuration, it pretty much is exactly like shouting a private message across a room

I find it easier - at least it's all centralised and searchable. No 'did they send an email, or an IM?'

I'm willing to bet a significant number of those were from acquisitions, rather than hiring directly.

> My idea was a dedicated, battery-backed piece of hardware that reliably stored time plus could sync other machines. Plugs into an interconnect with ultra-low latency. One for each datacenter.

Google have a variant on this, where they use a GPS receiver in each data centre to provide an accurate time source for local machines.

Some people get in early (7am), some people get in late (11-noon). People generally put in roughly the correct amount of hours, and it evens out - sometimes you do a short day, sometimes a long day. If you get done what you need to and it doesn't disrupt your clients, it's pretty flexible.

(big-4 consulting company)

(IANAL) Probably not if they do it before a warrant is issued.

> BROOKE: I don’t really see what they send. I tap through so fast. It’s rapid fire.

> I closed the tab at that moment.

> I'm sure that Australian Federal Police and Victoria law enforcement would be able to exercise search warrants on Fastmail's servers if they needed to.

Nobody is arguing against search warrants. People are concerned about warrantless searches.

I was beginning to think I was the only technology worker who likes being in the office!

I have the option of working from the office or from home, at least 2-3 days per week depending on what I have on. I much prefer working from the office. I enjoy hanging out and talking shit (and working) with my colleagues/friends, grabbing coffee, lunch somewhere nice, and when I leave at the end of the day I can flip from 'work mode' to 'home mode'.

Step 2 in Australia now is mandatory detention, and step 3 happens some undetermined time later (if ever). Interesting to see how we've gone backwards.

While I don't condone the 'personal attack', revoking his order because of it seems pretty childish.

Even until the last few years on Windows, codecs were a shit show. You could download codec packs, but it was pretty hit and miss. VLC was amazing - it would open everything, audio just worked, and subtitles just worked.

It's called "Most Big Financial Companies"

This was the result of a huge case of risk aversion and response to very loose but firm regulatory requirements.

I agree there's a middle-ground, but it's not "Employees can use their personal laptops".

If a company gives you a laptop to work on, and says that you can't put company data on personal devices, then in no situation should the employee be able to say 'I don't wanna'. Because that's how you end up in this exact situation.

Yeah I don't think a lot of people understand the lengths some companies go to, to control access to their systems (either because of risk aversion, regulatory requirements, or something else). It's on a different planet from a startup mentality of 'We hire trustworthy people, so all 10 employees have access to prod'. This is 'How do we protect customer data from 1 in 2000 IT staff across 100 countries?'

For example, I was working at a massive bank that was implementing an access control system for their servers that meant that admin's didn't have direct access. You had to

- submit a change ticket that went through all the approvals.

- This triggered a workflow through a web interface that opened an RDP or text terminal session to the server, for the appropriate person (OS, application, database, etc)

- The RDP session was recorded to video, the text session was logged.

- Once you logged out the password on the server was auto-rotated.

- The text-session was indexed and searchable. The software coordinating all this was able to match server logs against the video RDP session so you could search through the video ("show me the SQL Server commands that admin ran")

- On a regular basis, the server state would be reconciled against all the logged tickets for that server and discrepancies investigated.