|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 08 2017 03:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:44 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for. It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element. Well sure, the statement that you made right there is basically true - but I'm not the one who made the point that access to a network is the major point of vulnerability (my first comment was simply that financial systems have been breached in the past, to which he replied "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"). Beyond that he's countering some point that I'm not sure anyone made. Maybe if we're defining in terms of very specific use of the term "unhackable" to mean someone who uses software exploits to break into a system, but that's just semantic bullshit in that case. These days "hacker" can mean anything from someone who abuses software exploits to some kid who writes web code and assumes himself to be hot shit for doing so.
If you don’t like semantics of a profession, don’t talk to professionals to work in that field. And don’t defend broad generalizations about their profession.
|
On March 08 2017 03:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 03:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 08 2017 03:31 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections. Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here. If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device. The 'internet of things' will be really fun. Thousands of different devices with too low sales number to spend any time thinking about security and that will never get an update. I believe the main defense of the internet of things is supposed to be that they only possess very short range communication in a (hyper)local network. The actual "internet" bit is done through a router (Alexa, Google Home, or something like that) which can be secured better. Whether it actually is is another story, but that's supposed to be the main theory for how IoT won't just outright broadcast everything about you. But yes, information security and IoT is a massive problem. lol. If I was a mean person I would share this post with some friends to laugh at.
What do you mean? That my understanding of IoT is laughably incomplete? Or that the thoughts about its security are underdeveloped? It's not really my field. I read things every now and then, and a friend of mine seems a bit worried about it, but isn't the whole point of Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc. to be local, and point-to-point, both for network simplicity and for security? I know old bluetooth protocols leaked like a sieve (and probably Bluetooth 5 does too, and 6, 7, 8, ... will too), but it was generally not considered much of a problem (for consumers) because (1) it wasn't meant for sensitive data and (2) it had rather limited range.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:44 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well.
Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for. It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element. Well sure, the statement that you made right there is basically true - but I'm not the one who made the point that access to a network is the major point of vulnerability (my first comment was simply that financial systems have been breached in the past, to which he replied "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"). Beyond that he's countering some point that I'm not sure anyone made. Maybe if we're defining in terms of very specific use of the term "unhackable" to mean someone who uses software exploits to break into a system, but that's just semantic bullshit in that case. These days "hacker" can mean anything from someone who abuses software exploits to some kid who writes web code and assumes himself to be hot shit for doing so. If you don’t like semantics of a profession, don’t talk to professionals to work in that field. And don’t defend broad generalizations about their profession.
If your argument consists entirely of semantic bullshitting and goalpost-shifting then you are really quite a useless professional. And "hacking" even in software is a term that is used with quite a bit of ambiguity.
On March 08 2017 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated.
Strawman. Good job.
Russia Nasdaq hack for LS will represent my last involvement in this issue - since I have little interest in talking to someone who clearly has nothing useful to add other than complaints about how no one else knows what they are talking about. I have nothing else to say to you.
|
United States42787 Posts
On March 08 2017 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:41 KwarK wrote:On March 08 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. I disagree. It's a shitty thing to say but it's not untrue. The majority of Americans have discretionary income or discretionary time that they could allocate differently to be more "responsible". The problem is the expectation that those whose decisions have led them to be poor are going to make good decisions. That and expecting people to live in a society which fucks them over with rampant wealth inequality while at the same time demanding that they accept that they personally are the problem. Kwark, although I agree with you, sometimes access to those services and skills is a problem all on its own. My super poor, super rural home town has nothing. It is a half an hour drive to buy milk, one way. Longer if you want to go to a bank. I would have been hard pressed to find someone to manage a retirement account that wasn’t an hour away or more. I spent a few years playing Eve Online, a MMO RPG sandbox with a remarkably functioning market economy (goods are created, moved, priced etc entirely by players) and became obscenely in game rich (to the tune of about $50k USD value) until I sold it all and got banned for RMT. The vast majority of players never thought to explore what the game economy actually meant, even when they spent most of their game time grinding for cash (in game currency could be traded for free game time, it meant that for many people they spent their time in the game working for rent). The game spoonfeeds some basic tasks that generate value, such as mining, as a part of the tutorial but the real value lies in the metagame, such as controlling market information across multiple regions. But most players would rather spend 20 hours a month grinding out their rent in the most boring way than spend 10 hours researching the game and earn a decade of rent in the 11th. Even if you create a society in which everyone starts with equal knowledge and access to wealth you will very rapidly get huge wealth inequality because many people have no real understanding of where money comes from or how wealth is generated and no desire to learn. Sure, barriers exist, but even if they were removed most people wouldn't be much better off. Most people want to be told when and where to show up, what to do and how much they'll get paid for it because how they sell their labour isn't an important part of their life to them. Even when it's killing them. I agree with you. Now come up with a system to provide that knowledge to everyone is my poor ass home town and create the time for them to learn that information.
The internet gives people remote access to all human knowledge, in addition to almost all services. Most people in the west who are poor choose to be so, albeit not actively. Normally it's more along the lines of "I guess we're poor" and accepting that without any grasp of the factors that play a part in it. It's possible the town ought not to exist at all, having outlived any economic rationale for existing, but even then that doesn't mean that there are not options. Hell, of the top of my head, learning multiple languages can be done by damn near anyone because everyone automatically hones language skills simply by existing and communicating with other humans and translation work can be done by anyone with an internet connection.
Obviously there will be some issues that can never be fixed but the existence of issues that can't be fixed doesn't mean we should mislabel the issues which can be. The issue is far more often that people don't feel empowered to change their circumstances, rather than that they actually lack the power.
|
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated.
I guess it's rather like people who just know those factoids like in the ancient world everybody believed the world was flat. Ask them to substantiate it and they won't (they can't), they just respond with insults because they think it's so obvious, how could you be so dumb to not know that?
|
On March 08 2017 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated.
Perhaps a difference in definition. Is it *possible*? Yes. Are there certain systems in the world that you can be pretty damn sure will never be "fully compromised"? Also yes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated. Perhaps a difference in definition.
Perhaps so. However, when someone goes on a "hurr durr everyone else but me is st00pid pls love me guis" crusade then they can't and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else.
Mind you, this discussion would go a lot different if we were solving this from a "please clarify" approach rather than a "hurr durr im expert u st00pid" approach.
|
On March 08 2017 04:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:44 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked.
That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for. It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element. Well sure, the statement that you made right there is basically true - but I'm not the one who made the point that access to a network is the major point of vulnerability (my first comment was simply that financial systems have been breached in the past, to which he replied "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"). Beyond that he's countering some point that I'm not sure anyone made. Maybe if we're defining in terms of very specific use of the term "unhackable" to mean someone who uses software exploits to break into a system, but that's just semantic bullshit in that case. These days "hacker" can mean anything from someone who abuses software exploits to some kid who writes web code and assumes himself to be hot shit for doing so. If you don’t like semantics of a profession, don’t talk to professionals to work in that field. And don’t defend broad generalizations about their profession. If your argument consists entirely of semantic bullshitting and goalpost-shifting then you are really quite a useless professional. And "hacking" even in software is a term that is used with quite a bit of ambiguity. Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated. Strawman. Good job. Russia Nasdaq hack for LS will represent my last involvement in this issue - since I have little interest in talking to someone who clearly has nothing useful to add other than complaints about how no one else knows what they are talking about. I have nothing else to say to you.
Or they might be pointing out that you don’t know what you are talking about and your claim has a lot of problems.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Edit: you know what, you're not worth my time either.
Back to real news:
U.S. immigration authorities suspended a program last Friday that expedited visas for skilled workers — a darling class of workers in the tech community.
Despite stoking tension in tech companies, it's a relatively routine decision that's happened under administrations past. But it is missing one key piece of information — a timeline— and that could impact businesses.
What has changed?
"Premium processing" of H-1B visas, which allowed skilled workers to pay extra to request faster approval to work in the U.S., will no longer be available starting April 3, immigration authorities announced. That basically means all applicants will have to wait the standard period to see if they have won the "lottery," without the option to pay an extra $1,225 filing fee for guaranteed answer after 15 days.
Essentially, the government is shifting around which administrative tasks they'll tackle first, said immigration attorney Rajiv Khanna.
"This is not new for anybody. Last year they did the same thing," Khanna said. "It simply means a diversion of resources toward other programs that lack resources."
Indeed, last year immigration authorities said they were delaying premium processing until May 16. But this year's announcement gives a six-month window, not a specific date, for the premium processing delay.
That's where things get tricky.
"At least last year, we knew that by May, the premium track would kick in. It's fair for them to want a month, because they get this flood of applications and go through the lottery process. Getting a month is reasonable," said Piyumi Samaratunga, an attorney at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete. "[Now] we don't know if it will be implemented in May or at all."
For highly skilled foreign nationals hoping to work in the U.S., the H-1B visa program was already a gamble, as a relatively small number of spots are allocated through a lottery process. Almost all H-1B visa workers start working in October, and that won't change, Khanna said.
H-1B visas applicants must apply six months in advance of their start date — meaning an April 1 application for an Oct.1 start date. Indeed, last year, the H-1B visa program hit its cap for petitions by April 7.
What will change is how fast employers and workers get a "yay" or "nay" on whether they were one of the lucky ones.
Why is this changing?
The change quickly prompted reports that the Trump administration is "dismantling the H-1B visa" and will "leave many people and companies in limbo."
But the H-1B announcement (not to be conflated with an updated travel ban signed Monday) is closer to a supply chain issue, Samaratunga said.
U.S. immigration authorities said temporary suspension will free them up to sift through a backlog of long-pending applications. That means the majority of visa applicants won't face the long wait times they have in years past.
"The stated intent of the temporary suspension is to clear the backlog, which is an important step for those companies that have been waiting for months," Manan Mehta, founding partner of Unshackled Ventures, a venture capital firm that helps immigrant-founded start-ups deal with immigration issues.
Source
|
On March 08 2017 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
If your argument consists entirely of semantic bullshitting and goalpost-shifting then you are really quite a useless professional. And "hacking" even in software is a term that is used with quite a bit of ambiguity.
There's absolutely no semantic bullshit or goalpost-shifting going on here. I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". I know you're not going to provide it because it's not true, but it's great watching all of the profanity and complaining coming in its place.
Strawman. Good job.
Like "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"?
Russia Nasdaq hack for LS will represent my last involvement in this issue - since I have little interest in talking to someone who clearly has nothing useful to add other than complaints about how no one else knows what they are talking about. I have nothing else to say to you.
Actually the NASDAQ example isn't a bad counter-example, I'm glad you finally demonstrated an example of something that I asked for (albeit it took a lot of kicking and screaming). This is an example of a hack of an actual financial exchange system. However it's a rather weak example, the malware in question was only capable of wiping out the whole system, it did not have the capability of arbitrary editing records of financial transactions that would've allowed for the hackers to steal money.
On March 08 2017 04:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
What this comes down to is that RIK and LL have presumed that "anything connected to the Internet is hackable" (an unfortunate misconception that has been perpetuated by TV/movies like CSI and Live Free or Die Hard). I already know this to be false, but getting them to prove it is provoking some rather fierce responses, since they seem to believe that it's so obvious and widely-known that anybody who doesn't believe in it is simply uneducated. Perhaps a difference in definition. Perhaps so. However, when someone goes on a "hurr durr everyone else but me is st00pid pls love me guis" crusade then they can't and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else. Mind you, this discussion would go a lot different if we were solving this from a "please clarify" approach rather than a "hurr durr im expert u st00pid" approach.
Er, I already named two examples of unhackable systems, so the preposition you're defending has already been twice refuted. I don't know how much more clarification you need.
|
On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Actually the NASDAQ example isn't a bad counter-example, I'm glad you finally demonstrated an example of something that I asked for (albeit it took a lot of kicking and screaming). This is an example of a hack of an actual financial exchange system. However it's a rather weak example, the malware in question was only capable of wiping out the whole system, it did not have the capability of arbitrary editing records of financial transactions that would've allowed for the hackers to steal money.
Do you mind commenting on why those two things (wipe vs edit) are so distinctly different in difficulty/complexity?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked".
Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully.
|
On March 08 2017 04:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Actually the NASDAQ example isn't a bad counter-example, I'm glad you finally demonstrated an example of something that I asked for (albeit it took a lot of kicking and screaming). This is an example of a hack of an actual financial exchange system. However it's a rather weak example, the malware in question was only capable of wiping out the whole system, it did not have the capability of arbitrary editing records of financial transactions that would've allowed for the hackers to steal money. Do you mind commenting on why those two things (wipe vs edit) are so distinctly different in difficulty/complexity?
If you want a technical analysis, that would take quite a bit of time, and I know very little about the actual systems used by the NASDAQ corporation so there's not a great deal I could say.
But if you'd just like an analogy, it's the difference between forging a bank note, and setting aflame a stack of bills.
|
On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully.
Hmmm...
On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices."
Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful.
Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement.
|
On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement.
Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given.
EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password."
And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network?
|
On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network?
Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry.
|
On March 08 2017 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 02:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔 By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place. He likes to spout some gospel of prosperity stuff, throw out a few backhanded insults along the lines of "are you that dense/ only someone stupid would/ don't be obtuse" and then disappear for a couple pages. Please, I'm busy and can't babysit this thread all of the time encouraging the leftist hordes to make better arguments. And a good chunk of the shit that people post really isn't worthy my time to respond to. Here's a good example: Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔 By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place. I'm perfectly content to ignore stuff like this, both for the sake of the health of the thread and because such posts and how people react to them provide a useful barometer to me as to who the good posters are and aren't.
You ignore it because it's true. You can't say you were poor once in your life. The only reason why I called you out was you're defending a republican who is out of touch with reality. Which also says a lot about yourself already. Being poor does not mean you can buy a phone. A poor person has way more on their mind than buying a phone. But you wouldn't know that because you've never been in that position.
As for everyone talking about security threats, vulnerabilities, as a programmer, it's hilarious. Go into the programming thread and ask about it in there. "Reverse engineer the algorithm" right... If you have the algorithm in your hands, there's no need to reverse engineer anything, you've already broke into the database/server... It also takes months to find security vulnerabilities in bank systems if you really tried.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 08 2017 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:20 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:
I am asking for some proof of the claim "anything connected to the Internet can be hacked". Remember when I made that claim? No? Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully. Hmmm... On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." Fine, last try to see if you're just bullshitting or saying something useful. Please state the definition of "hacking" that you are using in the context of your statement. Gaining some arbitrary power over a system/data that was not lawfully or intentionally given. EDIT: I should probably add "... via electronic means" so that it's not misconstrued to possibly include "hitting the superuser with a wrench until he gives up the password." And does that include social engineering and/or fooling an employee into giving you access to the network? Yes, I do include that. But here's the thing to note about that: Not all major systems have a human-vulnerable element, where you can trick the superuser or military officer into doing something nefarious. Like I mentioned before, the blockchain that's going to replace our financial transaction systems in the near future is essentially unhackable. You can defraud one person's particular account (like 'stealing' their Bitcoin wallet), but there's absolutely no way to take control over the entire registry.
In that case, also explain what you mean by "theoretically unhackable."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
