I would be very surprised if they didn't use just traditional BBQ sauce. Pretty sure the people around here wouldn't love it so much if it were mustard based. I think that's pretty much just South Carolina. Buc-ees is headquartered in Texas.
It most certainly is not. There are companies not doing as much as they could but, even if they spent the majority of their time on data security, there will always be cracks.
It is absolutely preventable. There are ways of securing social security numbers so that they can't be reached by people who get into the main system. For one thing, social security numbers shouldn't be used by companies as customer ID numbers and shouldn't be stored at all by most companies, and if they must be stored, they should be stored offline. Also, hackers almost always get into systems because people accidentally let them in. They never just hack their way in like it's shown in the movies.
Or they figure out a password. Or they find a way to snoop and see what a legitimate user is seeing (which could be as simple as getting some binoculars and looking through a window - especially with people working from home now). In the end, the system HAS to show the SS# to the people/computers that need it. WHATEVER that system is, it can be fooled into showing it to somebody it shouldn't. Especially when you start talking about national actors and big crime syndicates that can invest millions into figuring out crazy hacks.
Little bit of this, little bit of that.
Jiminey Crickets, I'm not talking about the CIA or the KGB. Of course there's no 100 percent method for hiding data from semi-criminal national agencies. I'm talking about protecting against the people who are actually out there doing real world hacks and putting data up for sale. They aren't government, and they aren't big crime syndicates (though some of them desperately want you to believe that they are). They are individuals and small groups. I'm not talking about Hollywood or Ubisoft depictions.
There are definitely Big Bads out there, but how big and how bad is impossible to know. They aren't exactly public with their information. One that we know a little more about and which may be the biggest (if it still exists, we aren't exactly sure) is the Russian Business Network. This was supposedly shut down in 2007, but there are rumors about it continuing business in China (amongst other rumors).
Not just 'could' - they do! IT always seems to be first to go when the going gets rough. (First to come back as soon as it shows any hint of recovering, too.)
I am well aware.
I highly suspect that study was, itself, highly inaccurate. I could go to Wikipedia right now and find something wrong in very short order. Not so with Britannica. Heck, it even gets things wrong in order to just be politically correct.
Tangentially related:
Were you using extended or expanded memory?
…
Well of course. Quoting from your future biography 'The Man Who Fell To Earth 2', Wiki will one day say "Colif said 'I wouldn't trust a study by Nature'"—are we to discount that just because the reference is to a forum? 🙃 The medium does not define the content—eg Zed has established that half the products on AliExpress are not scams [ref: PCG forums].
I have a feeling, though I haven't checked, that the study was perhaps only concerned with scientific data, which on Wiki would mostly keep out the rabble that updates the rest of it.…
There are errors anywhere that has a significant level of content, Britannica & Wiki included. Just like there are always bugs in any significant code. Nature and similar top-tier outlets are not immune from the vagaries of human nature [pun intended, as always], but there are no better filters currently in existence until AI advances some more.
As they say, 'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote'
What then can you trust?
Well of course. Quoting from your future biography 'The Man Who Fell To Earth 2', Wiki will one day say "Colif said 'I wouldn't trust a study by Nature'"—are we to discount that just because the reference is to a forum? 🙃 The medium does not define the content—eg Zed has established that half the products on AliExpress are not scams [ref: PCG forums].
So if you won't even use a library as reference, what are you left with?
But seriously—did your course go thru the probably millions of errors present in the content of any large library?
First of all, you should know that, coming from a family of scientists, that Nature is frequently scoffed at due to their practices of publishing very low quality papers filled with low quality science that come from many highly questionable journals, many of which have used popularity matrices in order to justify the quality of the material. It is rather widely considered academic pollution. Except, of course, by journalists who love a great source of potential click-bait studies.Like say economists, engineers, teachers, historians, etc etc etc—that sort of rabble?
I'm curious, what caused you to suspect the Nature study was "highly inaccurate"? Since it was, as you thought, concerned with science.
"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias"
—Nature.
52.6.43.8
I'm more than a little disappointed in your attitude. At no point was I sarcastic or crtitical toward you, so I think you could have made your point without all the obnoxiousness.Oh interesting, I didn't realize there had been such a seismic shift in the scientific community—amazing it didn't make the science news anywhere I follow. What a shame tho to see a 150yo publication go down like that.
My info is ~15 years old. Please point me to where I can update it, since this chart is obviously completely wrong now:
You should also encourage a family member to help Washington University get their credibility back:
Eigenfactor: The Eigenfactor Metrics
Damn shame, is nothing sacred anymore?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram