Phillips, the pride of the Netherlands. Long time ago.
People suffered because of this, people died.
They should investigate what execs and managers knew about this and failed to act within a month and send them to jail for a year for each month they failed to act.
Because the group was founded and led by a Nazi in 1951 who believed in the exact same thing as the Nazi party but wasn’t a member, therefore avoiding pretty much any and all consequences.
Unharmed, the Nordic Faith Community of Wilhelm Kusserow survived the denazification because he wasn’t a member of the Nazi party. Additionally, he managed to be perceived as a victim by authorities, thereby avoiding post-war reeducation in interment camps. Afterwards he founded the Artgemeinschaft e.V. [rest of name] which adopted almost the same creed as the former Nordic Faith Community.
They are often burial mounds, but some are ceremonial. Many don’t exist anymore, or don’t exist as much more than a little bump because they’ve been plowed over. Some were reconstructed in the early 20th century and have nothing under them in either case. But they took an amazing amount of collaborative work, and from the finds in the mounds, it appears that people from the east coast to the Rockies were involved in the building of these mounds. They are not impressive to look at in general, but they are an incredibly important cultural artifact.
They’re relatively unknown in general, so this will help educate people about them and about a cultural religious center for much of a continent. I forgot to say that some of them are astronomically aligned based on a lunar calendar, one cycle of which takes something like 19 years, so they had to keep track of all of that despite having no apparent writing system. Just incredible.
I am still amazed every business seems to think Microsoft cloud would be a good idea for security, availability or just stability. Nothing in the history of Microsoft bears this out. I really don’t get it. For just about everything else at work, there’s a company standard set by business needs.
No one takes you seriously if you bitch about the brand of pen or paper or stapler the office buys. You get the company brand of computer, chair, desk, phone, phone service, etc. But if the company tried to tell you to not use Windows and Outlook everyone believes there would be a catastrophic rebellion or failure of all staff to send and receive email or something.
This has always seemed absurd to me, but worse in government that supposedly needs security and privacy.
Microsoft has service contracts with the DOD which to my knowledge have not been compromised.
I think there are some completely valid reasons for businesses to use Microsoft cloud services:
Shift some of the burden of responsibility to a third party. Organizations love this shit
Microsoft has some of the best paid security analysts and engineers in the industry. Chances are they’d be able to detect and mitigate attacks attacks better than a small local team of not highly paid sysadmins.
Microsoft is large enough to get some assistance from 3 letter agencies. That’s almost never going to happen with smaller companies.
Yeah. Exchange in 365 is, in almost every scenario, the far better option than running it on-prem. No more worries about installing the latest CU before attackers get in.
The only scenario where on-prem makes sense is a totally offline environment.
Shift some of the burden of responsibility to a third party. Organizations love this shit This is the only valid suggestion I’ve seen. And I get it - I just think there’s probably better third parties. Microsoft has some of the best paid security analysts and engineers in the industry. Chances are they’d be able to detect and mitigate attacks attacks better than a small local team of not highly paid sysadmins.
I hear this a lot about cloud companies, but see little evidence of it. People post frequently about leaving big cloud companies because of all sorts of reasons, one of which might well be pay. But even if they did have some of the best paid people - they’re not all highly paid people, and I doubt operations support are those people. (Have you ever tried to talk to Microsoft support?)
As I remember and understood it (I’m not doing a deep dive to refresh my memory for a lemmy post, but the overall point I think stands) the recent hack of Microsoft was because of accepting a home end user certificate to authenticate to a business / corporate (and apparently government) accounts. From what has been released, this happened due to a mix of (IMO) questionable design and lack of documentation or knowledge of how the authentication flows worked. These security engineers should have caught this before it landed in operations - because you have to catch these things in design, not rely on everyone using an authentication framework to sort of “cover for accepting multiple trust centers” that should not overlap. The reason this is a design issue is actually because it seems like it came about because of a new feature or function that wanted to allow lower confidence credentials to migrate to higher confidence or something like that.
If the security engineers missed that - they’re not that great. If they were overruled by management, well, that’s actually likely, but doesn’t change the facts that you as a subscriber didn’t OK that (frankly crazy) design change - you weren’t even informed. This is always an issue with the Cloud services, and I don’t see a way around it. Even people with contractual agreements got screwed here.
Microsoft is large enough to get some assistance from 3 letter agencies. That’s almost never going to happen with smaller companies.
I don’t see how that actually helps though. Most of our 3 letter agencies provide public guidance about defensive security recommendations and have for over a decade. There’s plenty of consultants if you can’t hire internally that can guide you through that stuff. The TLAs are not magical - I guess they might tell you you’ve been hacked or may tell you they know you’ve been targetted - but honestly - OF COURSE Microsoft Azure is a target, and we know it’s been hacked. This hack wasn’t revealed by a TLA, or by the “super duper security analysts” - it was a customer going over logs (that are so in the weeds most people didn’t pay for access to these logs at all) who informed Microsoft.
And this is my main counterpoint - when you have a “Fort Knox” you need really really good guards and can never make a mistake. I’m not sure it’s possible to have sufficient defenses when you’re running the e-mail for most businesses and the US government. We need to stop just assuming the Cloud providers have better {insert thing here} because of scale or money. I’d argue it’s pretty obvious they don’t - because they make more money if they don’t have the top end employees and can sell more features if they don’t lock stuff down and actually test before release. I’m going to argue that there’s every reason to believe that most Microsoft employees or contractors doing all functions are more like their support people than some better than you can hire super IT person.
Maybe they should ban far-left organizations indoctrinating children with marxist ideology as well? It's not like communism killed millions or something...
Ok. Life expectancy in america is lower for poor people. We can agree on that. Can you please compare it to the life expectancy in communist countries, like North Korea, USSR or China during Mao regime?
Nice deflection to the 1st country that isn’t Communist, a 2nd Country that doesnt exist anymore, and a 3rd country’s past failure. China has increased their life expectancy by over 44 years in the past 80 years of Communist rule and passed the USA in 2020. The USA is trending in the opposite direction…
Many of the issues have been attributed to policies that were made during the early Soviet Union, at a time when many officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization, and, even though numerous attempts were made by the Soviet government to alleviate the situation in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the problems were not completely solved.[1] By the 1990s, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.[2]
That was not my point. More than 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions happened after the USSR dissolved.
Apart from that: As an anarcho-communist, I don’t consider the USSR to be socialist (worker’s control over the means of production). And even the USSR never called itself “communist” (a classless, moneyless society by the standard “to each according to their need, from each according to their ability”), since that would have meant that the state would have had to be dissolved. The USSR was state capitalist (total state control over the means of production) and therefore still adherent to the “growth at all costs” paradime.
There is more thanone communist ideology. Murray Bookchin developed a ecologically stable form of communism starting in the1950s.
You are just going to have to live with the fact that you're the weirdo on this. People do not see Nazism and communism as similar or comparable. Nazism has discrimination and extermination of the "other" as core tenets of the ideology, communism is an economic model that simply does not have those elements no matter how desperate you are to assign them to it.
Authoritarianism is bad. But communism is not authoritarian. Governments calling themselves communist have become authoritarian and committed atrocities. But as much as weirdos like yourself like to deny it, governments capable of genocide are also capable of lying about being communist.
I mean most of the examples of “communism” we have are pretty damn authoritarian. The big two, the USSR and China, are all in on that shit, peaking with probably the mad regime of Stalin. Both are also pretty bad at communism.
But every third nation on Earth is currently run by a right wing hardcore authoritarian of one sort or another, from petty dictators to (increasingly few) monarchs. It’s the only form of government right wing politicians ever really pay attention to and the only solution right wing politics ever proposes.
This claim likely comes from the black book of communism, which includes lowered birth rates as deaths. Birth rates sink when women gain more freedom and education, so it should absolutely not be considered a bad thing, let alone a death.
Further, if the calculations used in that book were applied to capitalism, capitalism would have caused more deaths.
Communism is an economic model. It doesn’t cause people to kill anyone. It’s the political systems alongside that did and still does. You can see it’s different things, because a nation always has one of each, eg. capitalism+dictatorship, communism+democracy or capitalism+monarchy etc.
@mcgravier Bist du blod oder was? Germany, where one half of the country lived under communist oppression until 1989 (?), still thinks it's better to actively fight far right radicalism (you know, fascists). Because they are seen as a threat. If communists where an active threat, (like in the '70's) they would be targeted too.
Your both side-ism is false.
But don't worry authoritarian communism is stupid too. Lenin and Hitler waxed the same pole. @Geert
This is law. It takes ten years of practice just to really scratch the surface in one small area of law. Arbitrary compulsive retirements (such freedom) serve only to cause brain and experience drain that cannot be easily made up.
Add to that, most people retire when they should all on their own. Maybe sometimes they need a little push from colleagues. Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
I prefer government officials, and especially judges and senators, to have real experience. Most elders are not senile old coots, especially not those who spent their lifetime in a career that by nature is as daily taxing on memory and recall as is the law. Some say the law is a study and a practice in memory. The best trial lawyers usually have the best memory. Add to that the extensive amount of reading and writing trial attorneys and judges do. It’s not like this judge has been clocking out from a show-up job every day at 5 pm and then doom scrolling or binging Netflix.
I would say of the judges I’ve been before including some elderly federal judges in a senior or retired judge, or magistrate sort of role, have been some of the most knowledgeable, most efficient judges I’ve argued to, especially at the appellate level, where all they do (in theory) is jurisprudence, logical and policy reasoning, and interpretation, the most mentally demanding sort of law practice.
Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
He states that it went wrong this time and that the system in place is correcting the problem. How is that in support of the judge?
The rest of his comment is in support of no age limit for judges. He states in no uncertain terms that the older the judge, the better. His thinking is the cause for a slew of arguably poor decisions made from out of touch geriatric people who overwhelmingly rule over this country.
I’m in support of age limits for people who can directly and insurmountably affect my life. He is not. Therein lies the rub.
I prefer government officials, and especially judges and senators, to have real experience. Most elders are not senile old coots, especially not those who spent their lifetime in a career that by nature is as daily taxing on memory and recall as is the law.
I would say of the judges I’ve been before including some elderly federal judges in a senior or retired judge…
Using context clues, I think it’s fair to say I’m not the one being obtuse with my interpretation of OPs comment. Also, there’s a typo in your quote of me.
See, you’re doing it again. Just because he is ok with some older judges, you’ve drawn the conclusion that he supports this judge - despite the fact that he clearly stated he didn’t. That’s not “contextual clues”, but just reading what you want to read.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.