Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
from the good-luck dept
A few months ago, we wrote about some fairly ridiculous statements from rockstar astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, which showed that he was rather ignorant about how innovation worked. As we said at the time, it's great that we even have what's considered a "rockstar astrophysicist" today, and I really appreciate the work that he's done to get people interested in science, but when it comes to fields like innovation, it appears that Tyson does not use the same rigor in making sure he actually understands what he's talking about (and, apparently the same is true in other areas as well). For a guy who famously went crazy until James Cameron put the correct star patterns in the background sky in Titanic, you'd think he'd be a little more careful about making nutty statements. But then he launched this one on Saturday morning:
Obama authorized North Korea sanctions over cyber hacking. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create unhackable systems.We've already discussed the pointless sanctions, but the real whopper is the second sentence in that tweet. This is the kind of thing that people totally ignorant of the subject would say. It's not hard to demonstrate why by applying the same logic to other fields -- like, say, astrophysics:
Getting to other galaxies is hard. Solution there, it seems to me, is to build faster-than-light spaceships.Or, how about death:
Dying sucks. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create immortality.Violence?
There is too much violence in the world. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create people who are only nice.Education?
Too many people are uneducated. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create people who learn better.Go ahead and create your own...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: it seems to me, neil degrasse tyson, solution, sony hack, unhackable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or a system designed to get around "air-gaps". See Stuxnet, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only because their management fired the previous network management team because they were too expensive and went with the lowest bidders to replace them. The blame for this really is on the managers of the network management team.
The lax network structure and security is the product of uncritical doublethink in the boardroom.
Bingo. It is also a lack of planning and a dangerous lack of enforced security policy. People were putting vital information in unencrypted text files and running trojan horses sent to them via email, and nobody saw this as a problem despite years of best practices and public education into the dangers of the internet. I suspect there were a lot of people higher up in the organization who thought security policy is that thing that makes it difficult to get your job done, so Sony shouldn't have one, too.
Unlikely that they'll revisit that once they have put out all the fires...
At some point it will become too expensive for them to continue doing this. Sadly, instead of disappearing, I suspect they will just go to their friends in government and have them change the world to make it safer for Sony to live (because that has worked so wonderfully in the past.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth is, he's not wrong. Isn't that EXACTLY how innovation works? We build a rocket that doesn't go all the way into space, then we build a better rocket. Computer systems aren't as robust as they need to be? Build better computer systems. Try, fail, learn, try again. That's EXACTLY how innovation works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that's what he was advocating, that would be right.
But it's not. He's advocating a tautology. Tautology is not innovation it's stating the same thing twice. He's not talking about improving systems, he's just saying "hey, don't do this." "Want to live? Don't die." That doesn't help an innovator in any way. It's useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, are you arguing that there's some other world in which his words don't mean what they say? He stated a tautology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's pretty smart with that kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's pretty smart with that kind of thing.
or maybe not -after all if he applies the same careless logic to his day job he'll make a lot of mistakes there too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends -- this sort of talent is highly sought after by the US government these days... maybe he's looking for a government contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another gas giant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another gas giant.
Most people have no way to fact check any scientific claim, what's that got to do with Neil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Him and every other physicist in the world. And a lot of the engineers. And tons of actors. And many politicians. There was a SMBC comic that dealt with this. It turns out that experts tend to be INSANELY GOOD at one or two things. Otherwise they're just as stupid as anyone else, and in many cases dumber because they put so much time and effort into their particular field that they're worthless in many other ways.
Why does anyone care what a rock star physicist has to say about hacking? Or what an electrical engineer has to say about how to fix the economy? Or what an actor thinks about the current political climate? Anyone who really thinks this is a good idea should be beaten with the stick of knowledge. Listen to experts about their field. Disregard everything else they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. And they get equally ridiculed when they spout nonsense.
"Why does anyone care what a rock star physicist has to say about hacking?"
Because he's not just a scientist, but a scientist who has made it his business to explain science topics to the public and whom the public has great trust in. He is rightfully held to a higher standard on these sorts of things than actors, etc.
Look at the shoes he's trying to fill: Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan almost never made public assertions of fact without being able to support them. Tyson would do well to follow in that path -- it would enhance his own stature and would go much further in terms of actually educating people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's right, guys. I checked Twitter and saw almost no unsupported comments from Sagan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think his point is that, since it is impossible for Sony to create an unhackable system (especially since they're not even trying), it therefore becomes impossible for NK to avoid frivolous and unfounded sanctions by the US.
In sarcasm, a tautology can be your friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Solution there, it seems to me, is to use health potions wisely. Or not touching enemies when not powered up by weed or mushrooms. Or not touching enemies with zero rings. Hah, this can be entertaining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: promoting the fallacy
Thing is, you're both wrong. Innovation in technology doesn't arise from need per se and in general. That fallacy comes from not looking at innovation as it is, in the particular and actual manner that it occurs.
Innovation is based on the manner in which technology itself appears. Technological things have an ontological oddity in that they can "stand-in" for technology itself. Other things cannot. The result is that any given technology produces the potential that innovation innovates to replace it with. What produces the features in the next iPhone, or produced the iPhone, iPad and various other things from the Apple Newton? That they dfemonstrate their own inadequacy in an immediate and tangible way and thus in a sense create the need to innovate.
Need in general has never been the prod to innovation, specific needs that first become thinkable only on the basis of an inadequacy of any given technology in realizing the essence of technology are always the prod of actual, particular innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are two very simple fixes that would eliminate the vast majority of hacks and security vulnerabilities on the entire Internet. Everyone knows it, and has known it for decades, and yet we haven't implemented either one.
The two largest sources of devastating security hacks over a network involve compromising the application server via buffer attacks (a venerable technique dating back to the 1980s and the Morris Worm) and compromising the database via SQL injection.
SQL injection is very simple. Without getting too technical, you can stop it in its tracks by using something called Parametrized Queries. If you properly set up parameters on every bit of SQL you write, it's 100% impossible for your site to get hacked by SQL injection. The problem is, parametrization is not an obvious process, and a lot of people create SQL injection vulnerabilities out of pure ignorance: they just don't know that the obvious way is wrong, or how to do it the right way.
This could be fixed by having a mode in the database server--which is on by default and can only be turned off by someone who knows what they're doing--that will reject any query that's not properly parametrized with an error message stating that you need to use parameters. Goodbye SQL injection! But we've never done it.
Buffer overflows, likewise, have a very simple solution, because they stem from a very well-defined problem, and that problem is people creating poorly-managed buffers in C and closely related languages. In most languages outside the closest relatives of C, buffer overflows are either flat-out impossible or take some real effort to create because of improved memory management baked in at the language level. But in C, it's so easy to get wrong that not only can an ignorant developer who doesn't know what he's doing easily screw it up, but people with years of experience who honestly do know better can and do make the same mistakes, consistently!
This is where a good number of those security patches you get every month comes from. The devastating Heartbleed vulnerability was a buffer overrun bug. They've been making the Internet insecure for a quarter-century now, and all along the solution has been obvious: stop using C for network-facing software!
But we haven't.
Fixing those two simple things would instantly clear up the majority of all hacks. It wouldn't magically "create unhackable systems" like Tyson seems to think is possible, but it would get us pretty darn close, and it would be easy! But we haven't done it.
Try, fail, learn, try again. That's how innovation works, but in computer security, we seem to keep falling flat on our faces at the "learn" step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't forget social engineering. More difficult to solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.portal2sounds.com/135#q=science&w=cave%20johnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V/I Ratio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eh, I don't think so. There's a big difference between *better security* and "unhackable." And the difference is important. It gets back to Schneier's discussions on airport security. People keep trying to set up airport security with the ridiculous claim that no bad guys can get through, but that's impossible and stupid. The way you do that is you don't let anyone fly.
The point is, if you want the benefits of air travel, you have to admit that there's some risk and then try to minimize it, while balancing the inconvenience/problems that creates. You don't try for perfect. You balance the tradeoffs.
Same with computer security. But the point NDT is making here ignores those tradeoffs completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is just nitpicking about a poor choice of phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
As a public figure with a target on his back, Tyson should understand this better.
The little people can get away with a couple of locks. Celebrities and the 1% can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
That said, why should NDT know better? He's not a security expert, he isn't even in the IT field. He's a frakking astrophysicist. Because he's a celebrity, suddenly that means he has to be absolutely accurate 100% of the time, without leaving any room in his statements for misinterpretation? Just as the only unhackable system is one that doesn't exist, the only person who hasn't made a mistake in his statements is one that has never spoken. Why are people surprised that he's human? Why attack him just because he isn't infallible, when he never claimed to be?
The basic premise of NDT's statement is sound, even if he screwed up in the delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
Note that I'm really talking about absolute mathematical or physical impossibility, as in faster-than-light travel, as opposed to really, really hard or even the strong suspicion that it's impossible. Remember the famous words of Lord Kelvin: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." ... it appears that this learned and experienced man was slightly in error.
Perhaps the issue is that we need a good operational definition of an unhackable system against which to test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
There are such mathematical arguments, but I'll address the "good argument" part. Here's why it's impossible to build a perfectly secure system that remains usable:
In a usable system (I'm talking about all security systems here, not just computer security), there must be a way that authorized access can take place. This point of access is precisely what makes perfect security impossible.
There must be some means for a system to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate access. With your front door, this way is likely a physical key. That differentiation is impossible to do perfectly in a usable system. All usable authentication methods can be spoofed, and the nature of things ensures this will always be true. If you come up with a system that is actually unspoofable, you've also come up with a system that isn't usable because the rate of false positives that lock out legitimate users will be too high. All methods of authentication must include room for error. Keys get worn, biometric markers change, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
Not all. Nuke codes are single-use. Zero room for error, and they are usable. Single use security (i.e. one time pad or something like that) is one option.
Mind you, the system isn't friendly by any stretch. But if you want "unhackable" security, then a one-time pad with dual-person physical access via simultaneous hardware activation by armed personnel is pretty damn hard to get past.
Of course that would be overkill for a company to use for simple business data that doesn't have the capability of killing millions of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
So, knowing the code does guarantee the person giving the code has the authority to start a nuclear war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
How does that make for zero room for error? Being single-use (or even tying the specific code to a specific nuke) doesn't eliminate the possibility that the codes get leaked or stolen.
Single use security (i.e. one time pad or something like that) is one option.
Properly done OTPs are mathematically unbreakable, but they have a enormous weakness nonetheless: the distribution of the key. A OTP cipher (like any other cypher) is only as secure as the key distribution method. In the case of OTPs, the key distribution method is such a huge problem that an entire branch of cryptography was invented just to mitigate the problem: public key encryption.
"But if you want "unhackable" security, then a one-time pad with dual-person physical access via simultaneous hardware activation by armed personnel is pretty damn hard to get past."
Indeed -- but even that is a far cry from actually being unhackable. Unhackable is, as far as we know, an impossibility. That's why security is about economics: you are trying to make it so expensive to get around the security that doing so isn't worth it. That's a different thing than being unhackable, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
Agreed, but what if the expense of breaking something is so enormous, that the entire planet's supply of natural/economic resources could not approach 10% of the cost of breaking it, then isn't it effectively unhackable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A fundemental misunderstaning of the subject.
Thus, there is a risk in considering anything "unhackable" when it's just uneconomical. If you really think something is unhackable, then you are guaranteeing that you will be caught completely unaware and defenseless when the hack eventually happens.
This is all related to a fundamental paradox of security: the minute that you believe you are secure is the minute that your actual security is in great danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want people correctly understand what you say, create statements that cannot be misunderstood...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn't magically make everything perfect, but it would be a vast improvement. Low-hanging fruit, as developers like to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
by the way- my above point? 78chtrs. it can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point about specialty knowledge is right on the money. Everyone understands the problem with specialists when it comes to medicine: specialist doctors tend to be less informed about medical things that don't fall into their specialty than generalist doctors, and so their opinions outside their specialty are not held to a high standard. What everyone needs to understand is that this is how it works with specialists in all fields, not just medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very true, and it can be a bit of a shock when you finally discover this principle. Specialists can be even more ignorant than average people because they've chronic tunnel vision. They manage to excel in their chosen field by actively ignoring anything they consider extraneous.
Try being the IT guy herding scientists, doctors, or lawyers. It can be quite comical watching these "masters of the Universe" in their chosen field fall flat on their faces every time they step outside it, and I do mean every time. They think Benny Hill is great comedy. They think Karl Marx got a bad rap. They're often racist, misogynist, can't for the life of them remember their mother's birthday, etc., ad infinitum.
"The Absent Minded Professor" was a somewhat funny idea for a movie, but I hated it for glorifying this practice. Nobody should get a pass to ignore all the stuff everybody else has to deal with just because they've learned how to specialize better than their competition. Give me a polymath instead anyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'll achieve total security. You won't meet any other business objectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's long been a truism that the only way to make a system truly unhackable via the internet is to disconnect it from the internet. If it's accessible in any way, there are risks. You can minimise those risks in many ways, but nothing is "unhackable". Doubly so if there's human interaction with the system at any point, since they're the usual vector for attack if a direct attack is too difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's only the first part of the truism. The rest of it is: then encase your computer in a block of concrete and drop it to the bottom of the Marianas trench.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. That is a false dichotomy. Bad security makes everything else inconvenient, like the way mandating complex passwords with frequent changes encourages people to write them down on post-it notes because it is so difficult to comply with. Good security makes it easier for users to act in a secure way. For example, 2-factor key fobs. Done well they are so much easier to use than complex passwords.
The trade-off is that good security requires more effort from the security engineer. Generally that's a good trade-off because it puts the burden on an expert who should be working with a well-funded budget rather than on amateurs (the regular users) who have no autonomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"For example, 2-factor key fobs. Done well they are so much easier to use than complex passwords."
I disagree completely with your example. First, 2 factor security is inherently more inconvenient than 1 factor (for obvious reasons). Second, a key fob is only more convenient in a certain use case. If you lose or destroy that fob, you will discover that just having a password memorized is much more convenient in other use cases.
As a security engineer, I would love to be proven wrong on this point. Can you demonstrate a generalized case where increasing security does not decrease convenience (either in the electronic or physical world)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: man
Microsoft (!) is still complying with US gov't demands via National Security Letters to sell out its customers in the interests of national security, so stop using their crap software.
I don't like MS either, but I don't blame this on them any more than I blame Google, Apple, AT&T, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Rule of Tautology Club Is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tautologies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unfair
As for his tweet, I'd be more worried about it if it was someone who was supposed to know about computer security, I also don't hold people to their 140 character brain farts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
I believe it's impossible to create a totally unhackable system, personally.
It's related to the old programming axiom: "As soon as you make a program idiot-proof, someone makes a better idiot."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
Creating perfectly secure systems has been known to be impossible for as long as people have been looking at the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
Perhaps I'm proving Gwiz's point. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't know if P = NP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One does not simply create unhackable systems
Solution there, it seems to me, is to walk into Mordor.
http://memegenerator.net/instance/57758883
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One does not simply create unhackable systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech writer judges a person's thinking based on 140 character tweet. GIF at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech writer judges a person's thinking based on 140 character tweet. GIF at 11.
Assuming you meant to suggest Mike is a journalist, Mike has repeatedly corrected this false assumption. This is and always has been an opinion blog. Don't like it? Go read a newspaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tech writer judges a person's thinking based on 140 character tweet. GIF at 11.
journamalist - noun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open to interpretation
Regardless, this seems like a sentence that is open to a number of interpretations, and to spend the time calling it out and dissecting it strikes me as a bit silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if you are doing something that has no chance of accomplishing it's goal, trying to build an unhackable system might actually spin off some usable elements. Further sanctions against NK will not.
Don't criticize what you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard to argue with that...
Seams to me that 'hacking' has become too generic of a term. I think NDT meant 'create computers that can't be remotely exploited'. -and he probably didn't understand that it wasn't an exploit that lead the sony breach. exploit != (does not equal) remote exploit != unauthorised access != social engineering, and yet these are often all lumped into the same category of 'hacking', which makes the word rather amorphous and hard to generalise about.
The biggest (only?) threat to eventually having non-remote exploitable computers is gov/industry backdoors. Openbsd, might even get you there now- or it might be back doored, lol- but it's known for having had almost no known exploits over the years. So anyway, 'unhackable' -if you mean it in this limited context, doesn't seam so far-fetched a goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---
NDT does need to hold himself to the same standards he holds others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just about ANYTHING else I sit there and go "Uhhhhh... if I didn't know who he was I'd wonder why anyone bother recording this crazy person."
He's rather a normal person with his inane thoughts in anything outside of astrophysics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pioneer paves the way for others to follow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock stars
(Judgin' by thet name, tho, he's prob'ly made outa chicken.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Can you demonstrate a generalized case where increasing security does not decrease convenience (either in the electronic or physical world)?"
A bee keepers suit. a welding mask. a flood dyke. -more generally- ANY security where the consequences, from lack there of, results in a net reduction of convenience or lack of utility. A valid question is, on what time frame does one measure convenience? One might argue, that dealing with the fallout of a breach/hack would be far more inconvenient then implementing the security necessary to avoid such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEEMS TO ME THAT SONY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike had sense of humour fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are we sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
security != safety?
Am I? where is that line drawn exactly? I think maybe you miss the point/weight of the analogies. sony has been hacked over 50 times in the last decade...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I doing it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are too single focused.`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few malcontent terrorists are blowing sh*t up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]