[A]fter spending nearly a quarter billion dollars and over 4 years on its two TECS Mod programs
... okay, pay me, another three computer scientists (specializing in data processing/searching, interfaces/HCI, artificial intelligence and computer agents and one to coordinate it all) and six specialists in areas related to the objectives of the computer system 100k a year... and we could almost certainly have a good master plan in that first year *easily*.
f they are strong, they are hard to remember, and if you can remember them they probably aren't strong.
Not strictly true; current thought is that a nonsense or semi-nonsense passphrase is both easy to remember and difficult to crack.
For example, "Random guises fool Johnson". Pretty easy to remember. Direct brute force would be computationally impossible (given a secure algorithm, naturally). Even if the cracker knows it's a phrase, they don't know how many words or how long they are.
Let's say they guess four words and they've got a dictionary. There's about 171k words in current usage; let's say the cracker goes for the 50k most used and that the passphrase uses words from that 50k. That's 50,000 to the fourth (minus a bit if you assume no duplicates) or 125 trillion possibilities.
And even one name or non-standard word jumps the attempts needed by orders of magnitude.
“We are the people creating the future – not manufacturers of computers or cables. We are the extraordinary."
Yeah, umm, Mr. Artist? Lots of luck making electronic music without cables or, you know, electronic noisemakers. And computers with specialty software to eliminate background noises from your music. And so forth.
As for "creating the future"? Yeah, I would consider (granted, I'm a computer guy, so...) the people developing augmented reality, high-precision surgical robots, video streaming services and such to be making the future. Don't get me wrong; music is nice. But it's not going to connect me with video to a friend from across the world, it's not going to fix up my internal organs and it's not going to generate new vistas to interact with.
You arrogant twat. Know what the major thing on my phone is? Photos. That I take. And you want me to have to pay *you* for those? I fucking took them, asshat.
* In fact, some journals charge fees for submission.
* Academic papers are peer-reviewed - by what are effectively volunteers.
* The fees for access to academic journals are absurd, particularly considering the above.
* Some journals demand copyrights over the paper.
* The above has literally led to academics that offer *their own work* freely on a website being hit with takedown notices.
* It has also led to academics being unable to use the results of studies done in previous work - that *they did* - in future work.
* The above two actually hinders that which the research is meant to advance. In a very petty manner, to boot.
Now, this varies from field to field; in Computer Science, there's less of these kinds of problems. Partially because the big boys (ACM, IEEE) don't play that way, and partially because it's a lot more conference-centered than journal article-centered.
Especially when they don't think of the numbers. 600 people taking orders from him? Okay, fine, let's take that as true. That each one manages on average 33 blogs as well? Yeeaaah... ummm... somehow I doubt those 'blogs' have a profile above a teenager's horrible poetry site.
And relies on word of mouth on how to find them, not search engine traffic. You think the teenager that is told The Pirate Bay is where to find his favorite series for free is not going to ask "So what's the address?"
If they don't get the information in the form of a hyperlink anyway, that is.
Indeed. If you're using computer controls for infrastructure, medical devices and such, you *need to have both software and hardware safeties*. I've emphasized this to students in an Ethics in Computing class, and I will again given the opportunity.
If there's no reason for your generators to run at a sufficient speed to burn out (and there's not), then you prevent it from being physically able to run that fast. You have one or more operators on site - thus controls should not be even capable of being remotely accessed (remote monitoring isn't so bad). If a medical device uses radiation to gather information on a patient, it should not be capable of emitting a harmful amount (a real case, that, from a few years back - the hardware relied on the firmware/software for safety, and the software was poorly installed, poorly maintained and poorly operated... leading to, well, microwaving of tender body parts).
It's basic computer and network security - expose only what needs to be exposed, and make it as physically impossible as possible to access the rest. A bank or business might use a time-locked vault for a very good reason - so that no matter what happens, the vault simply cannot be opened except at the time when it needs to be open to move stuff out. No matter who's compromised, what information they have, what threats are made, the vault is secure for most of the day or week.