I'll admit my statement was overly simplistic and may even be willing to admit an 'overrated' designation wouldn't be entirely inappropriate if you really disagreed with the way I presented the issue.
But 'flamebait' my comment was not. It's flamebait if I say "F%^^* those Brazilians" or some such thing.
Sometimes I write pithy comments (as above) and sometimes I write longer explanations. My longer explanations tend to be ignored, while the shorter ones do not. So I play the averages, and I usually don't invest too much time in any one comment, if I'm not sure if anyone is going to read it. Instead, I rely on those responding to make the points which support my position.
Not saying if it's right or wrong, it just happens to be the way I look at it.
FFS I chose my UName after 1MM+ unames had already been chosen. I didn't want to be LinuxDude545 or FlyingSpaghettiMonster844, so I chose a unique name on a whim.
People need to get over it... I swear, I've discovered atheists are a bigger pain in the ass than Christians!
He was on the newshour with Jim Lehrer last night and spoke intelligently and seemed very down to earth. I had a real respect for him when he mentioned he was inspired by Asimov.
Good point. That is exactly the type of system I think we should have, but I still wouldn't necessarily call a system like that "electronic voting", because the paper ballots would truly determine the outcome.
It would insure morons could fill out the ballots properly and we'd still have an audit trail. I'm all for it.
Ok, so the copyright czar says to the FCC, "do this with the federal prosecutors", and the FCC says "no, that's dumb"... the federal prosecutors also take issue with the task.
Who is really in charge? Is it really the FCC or is it really the czar? If it's the FCC, why have a czar... if it's the czar, exactly how powerful is he/she, what are the limits, and who oversees them?
Ok, outside the copyright debate, am I the only one that is extremely skeptical when someone is the "czar" of something? What the hell does that actually mean, and what can they actually do?
If it doesn't sound like an utterly useless, powerless post, it sounds like we should be running for our lives from this all powerful czar - neither is particularly good, from my perspective.
Yeah, because everyone knows the government has not been motivated to find out who's blowing up all those cars in Iraq. The breakthrough Bob Woodward referenced almost certainly involves advanced optics
satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.
Who says? Yeah, not that great now, that we know of... but the US is exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists. I'd bet we'd be able to put some really smart people working on the problem for a few years (maybe about 5) and have a major breakthrough.
Bob Woodward has said there's been an enhancement to the predator drones the government has developed, which has quelled the violence in Iraq. This could very well be what has been placed on these satellites.
Just goes to show that the government really is incompetent. First they wow everyone by showing they're aware of the need for cybersecurity (or at least cyber security PR), then they show their lack of forethought by saying "oh, this is already done somewhere else in the government, and finally (hopefully, finally) they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding by reinstating the project.
Reminds me of how we used to treat the potential of large scale terrorist attacks before 9/11. Something major and devastating will happen one day and someone who actually has a plan will take control of security. Right now it's just a bunch of white-haired old men who barely know what a computer is directing people working in tiny departments with no coordination or knowledge. It's a shame too, because IT can be so powerful if used correctly.
After the major cyber-incident, hopefully they'll hire a PR firm too. This is amateur hour.
Eh, I'm pretty sure it's being run by "philosophers" (i.e. aristocratic elites accountable to the people) that makes for a republic, which is the ideal society. But it's been a long time, so I could be wrong.
I defer to you if you've got some kind of expertise or knowledge...
I agree that it is about as illegal as anti-sodomy laws in Oklahoma (or whatever state(s) that's illegal in). If you don't enforce the laws, you're still breaking the law, just no one cares. The fact they have not enforced this, despite obvious abuses illustrates the SEC's suckatude.
But you are wrong about the liquidity issue. How does someone taking money from a buyer and issuing an IOU increase liquidity? A system is "more liquid" when money flows into the system, not out of it.
Because normal shorting (though imperfect) keeps a lid on speculative furors, and calls a company's bluff when they talk about how great they are. It's a necessary part of a functioning market. Since they are putting capital at risk, it is perfectly legitimate.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic. Republics work well, democracies are terrible - at least according to Plato.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit my statement was overly simplistic and may even be willing to admit an 'overrated' designation wouldn't be entirely inappropriate if you really disagreed with the way I presented the issue.
But 'flamebait' my comment was not. It's flamebait if I say "F%^^* those Brazilians" or some such thing.
Sometimes I write pithy comments (as above) and sometimes I write longer explanations. My longer explanations tend to be ignored, while the shorter ones do not. So I play the averages, and I usually don't invest too much time in any one comment, if I'm not sure if anyone is going to read it. Instead, I rely on those responding to make the points which support my position.
Not saying if it's right or wrong, it just happens to be the way I look at it.
FFS I chose my UName after 1MM+ unames had already been chosen. I didn't want to be LinuxDude545 or FlyingSpaghettiMonster844, so I chose a unique name on a whim.
People need to get over it... I swear, I've discovered atheists are a bigger pain in the ass than Christians!
Funny, I don't consider someone making a point I happen to disagree with "flamebait", even if I don't consider it to be insightful.
No kidding, almost enough to make me consider going into spam as a business... ok, not really ... but 400K/month?!
He was on the newshour with Jim Lehrer last night and spoke intelligently and seemed very down to earth. I had a real respect for him when he mentioned he was inspired by Asimov.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=13102008&seg=5
Well, I certainly can't argue with logic like that!
Good point. That is exactly the type of system I think we should have, but I still wouldn't necessarily call a system like that "electronic voting", because the paper ballots would truly determine the outcome.
It would insure morons could fill out the ballots properly and we'd still have an audit trail. I'm all for it.
IT is great... Linux is great, but e-voting doesn't belong anywhere in major, general elections, IMHO.
If you can code it, you can hack it. If you have coders or admins, you have potential security threats.
Ok, so the copyright czar says to the FCC, "do this with the federal prosecutors", and the FCC says "no, that's dumb" ... the federal prosecutors also take issue with the task.
... if it's the czar, exactly how powerful is he/she, what are the limits, and who oversees them?
Who is really in charge? Is it really the FCC or is it really the czar? If it's the FCC, why have a czar
Who cares? We'll still have light bulbs. Plus we'll save on sunscreen!
Ok, outside the copyright debate, am I the only one that is extremely skeptical when someone is the "czar" of something? What the hell does that actually mean, and what can they actually do?
If it doesn't sound like an utterly useless, powerless post, it sounds like we should be running for our lives from this all powerful czar - neither is particularly good, from my perspective.
Ah, so they fooled the journalist... now it all makes sense.
Agreed. Spend 2 minutes with Elbot ... I was not impressed in the least. Seems as though we've made little progress on this in the last 5-10 years.
Heh, I'm in financial services, try 1963. Nothing like using a state of the art thick client to emulate a 60's era dumb terminal... your fees at work!
Yeah, because everyone knows the government has not been motivated to find out who's blowing up all those cars in Iraq. The breakthrough Bob Woodward referenced almost certainly involves advanced optics
satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.
Who says? Yeah, not that great now, that we know of... but the US is exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists. I'd bet we'd be able to put some really smart people working on the problem for a few years (maybe about 5) and have a major breakthrough.
Bob Woodward has said there's been an enhancement to the predator drones the government has developed, which has quelled the violence in Iraq. This could very well be what has been placed on these satellites.
Yeah, tags are a little f'd lately.
Hmm, now if only they could integrate hardware and software like we do ... then they could actually go to the moon.
Can a submarine swim - if the results are the same, does it matter all that much?
Just goes to show that the government really is incompetent. First they wow everyone by showing they're aware of the need for cybersecurity (or at least cyber security PR), then they show their lack of forethought by saying "oh, this is already done somewhere else in the government, and finally (hopefully, finally) they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding by reinstating the project.
Reminds me of how we used to treat the potential of large scale terrorist attacks before 9/11. Something major and devastating will happen one day and someone who actually has a plan will take control of security. Right now it's just a bunch of white-haired old men who barely know what a computer is directing people working in tiny departments with no coordination or knowledge. It's a shame too, because IT can be so powerful if used correctly.
After the major cyber-incident, hopefully they'll hire a PR firm too. This is amateur hour.
Eh, I'm pretty sure it's being run by "philosophers" (i.e. aristocratic elites accountable to the people) that makes for a republic, which is the ideal society. But it's been a long time, so I could be wrong.
I defer to you if you've got some kind of expertise or knowledge...
whoops... :s/buyer/owner
I agree that it is about as illegal as anti-sodomy laws in Oklahoma (or whatever state(s) that's illegal in). If you don't enforce the laws, you're still breaking the law, just no one cares. The fact they have not enforced this, despite obvious abuses illustrates the SEC's suckatude.
But you are wrong about the liquidity issue. How does someone taking money from a buyer and issuing an IOU increase liquidity? A system is "more liquid" when money flows into the system, not out of it.
Because normal shorting (though imperfect) keeps a lid on speculative furors, and calls a company's bluff when they talk about how great they are. It's a necessary part of a functioning market. Since they are putting capital at risk, it is perfectly legitimate.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic. Republics work well, democracies are terrible - at least according to Plato.