"Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously, but really, this kind of thing seems to work for Israel, who would likely be bombed into terrorist kingdom come if they didn't put in measure like this that seem to actually work without pissing everyone off."
You're kind of getting off your own "simple" track, there.
Here's one, about as simple as it can get: get rid of the TSA completely. After all, they haven't demonstrated that they have done a single bit of actually "keeping us secure" since their inception.
All the potential terrorists that have been caught, were caught by other people.
"Nah, never happen. Federal law allows drug screening and it will supersede state law. In fact, federal law requires drug screening for certain jobs and pot is one of the tier 1 drugs specifically outlawed."
Federal law only supersedes State law where (A) the two conflict, AND (B) it's a Constitutional question. The Federal government already knows that its drug laws are unconstitutional usurpations of State power... that's why the Feds have been saying lately they will only try to enforce Federal marijuana laws when STATE laws are violated. People have gotten wise to Federal overreaches, and the Feds want to maintain the illusion of authority where they can.
Ahem... I was speaking about Washington and Colorado. Not New York, or Philadelphia, or wherever.
I know that in many states, your hiring criteria must be directly job-related. Smoking almost never qualifies as being "job related" unless someone is smoking on the job.
Regardless... even though I don't smoke, I would not knowingly and voluntarily work for a company that bans smokers. I have my standards, too.
"There are other issues with it being propietary. It might not call home and be INTENTIONALLY insecure, but it may be UNINTENTIONALLY insecure. There's no room for peer review, since it's completely closed."
Of course it could be. But look at what OP has been dealing with... services that are JUST AS proprietary, and do not use secure protocols, and directly involve 3rd parties.
It's sure as hell an improvement over what he was doing.
Sure, you could set up rsync or some other tech solution... but is he prepared to do those?
"Can't have those guys doing mind-numbingly boring jobs blowing off a little stress when they get home you know..."
Here's an interesting point, though: drug screening for pot will likely become an illegal practice in Washington and Colorado. You can't fire or "not hire" somebody for doing something perfectly legal that has nothing to do with the job, if it isn't happening on the job.
That is to say: hiring criteria has to be job-related. Appearance (clothing) can be job-related. Things you cay in public can (in some circumstances) be deemed job-related. But smoking a joint on your day off is in no way job-related. If it's also legal, then it's probably ILlegal for somebody to make it a hiring criterion (or grounds for firing).
"Can't have those guys doing mind-numbingly boring jobs blowing off a little stress when they get home you know..."
That's my main philosophical objection: these things are known to hurt people who are not hurting anyone else, more than they help anybody. It's a stupid practice.
This is what I suggested. Then somebody bitched because it was "proprietary". Well... it is, but the proprietary part is no big deal. The protocol is robust and secure. As for any concern that the program might "call home" with its own secret key... well, that's what network monitors are for. The first time that happened, somebody would scream to high heaven, and its cover would be blown. So the there's about a snowball's chance in hell of a company like BitTorrent doing that.
You know, I kind of like the idea of "Neighborhood Attached Storage". But you would still need at least one trusted party to administer it, if there were more than one account.
"I'm sorry, but in my country, I'd laugh at you if you asked me to take one."
You seem to have a strange idea of the United States. The job he was referring to is a private employment position for a bank, which is a privately-owned business. They can hire (or not) any security guard they want.
Personally, I would laugh at them too. Same with pre-employment drug screening. I simply won't do that. (And the practice has fallen out of favor, anyway.) But remember: it is private parties who did these things; it had nothing to do with government.
"When did your boss get to control your life?"
For a long time, a lot of people in the U.S. let employers get away with this kind of thing. I don't know why. I don't put up with it, nor do any of my friends. It isn't like that so much, anymore. I think the employers finally figured out that they were chasing away all the smart people.
"The US must be much more stupid than I suspected."
If you're judging an entire country by one person's anecdote, you must be much more stupid than I expected.
"Despite the fact that most of the world knows this, there's still one country that thinks such things can be admissible in court."
You don't mean the U.S., do you? Because to the best of my knowledge no jurisdiction in the U.S. allows polygraphs to be used as evidence against a defendant, without their consent. And they'd be stupid to consent.
However, a positive polygraph result can be used in your favor, *IF* the judge will allow it.
"Were you around in the nineties? That was when Clinton used CALEA to force telecoms to build the exact infrastructure that was exploited after 9/11 by Bush, and later Obama."
The lesson is clear: even if the current administration pushes something through while promising not to abuse it, that has absolutely no bearing on whether someone else will, later.
"Not everybody has the time to do it themselves and ultimately you have to pay someone for off-site storage regardless."
No, you don't. With BT Sync you keep the data on your own machines. That's the point: no third party necessary.
"Why not use BitTorrent Sync? It's a 'A proprietary peer-to-peer file synchronization' tool." If your data is important enough to warrant encryption you don't utilize proprietary software.
That's a silly thing to say. Spoken like somebody who spent 30 seconds on Wikipedia and knows nothing more about it.
First, OP is comparing against other "proprietary tools". Further, the "proprietary" part of BTS is inherently simple, transparent, and easy to understand. And the BitTorrent protocol is common and open. Compare that against any of the services to which he refers.
Further yet, considering the advantages of the BitTorrent protocol, if BT Sync were ever to go down (or even if it doesn't), somebody else would produce an app to do it pretty quickly. Likely even open-source.
Frankly, in my opinion it's a non-argument in this particular case.
For the money you're paying a service, why not just hoop up an inexpensive machine for a server, put a TB or two in it, and use BitTorrent Sync?
It's pretty secure, you can share files with others, it's available for all major OSes (including iOS and Android), you don't have to mess with any 3rd parties seeing your data... what more do you want?
"Maybe he should go work for the UN. They've been trying to get the US government to abandon various forms of harmful behavior for a while. "
The UN only wants to trade what it sees as bad U.S. behavior by its own brand of bad behavior.
Remember that not all members of the U.N. are equal. It was created that way.
While I deplore the actions of my government, and wish it would stop the foolish and damaging things it has been doing, I have reservations because (A) I don't think it will happen unless someone convinces Obama that he's not a king, and (B) I would be happy -- ecstatic even -- if the UN disappeared tomorrow.
Well, 2 points for your employer, and another 2 points for you. But in my experience it's usually not optional.
Don't misunderstand me; today I work for myself so all meetings are optional. Still, for the sake of bringing in work I do have them. With customers, though, not employees.
The original paper on the very first page of the introduction, says atmospheric CO2 drawdown will reduce CO2 concentration in the oceans, not increase absorption. The latter doesn't make sense anyway, because the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up.
Isn't it just a bit curious that this didn't happen a long time ago?
It's amazing sometimes what a lot of Americans will tolerate for the sake of letting the government "keep them safe"... especially given the government's terrible record of doing it.
"Culture comes from the top. If the suits mandated that ALL meetings had to have an agenda with expected outcomes for every line item, AND a business purpose, then in a perfect world, 99% of all business meetings would be eliminated. "
Yes, but don't forget that it's "the suits" who generally organize the useless meetings then run them poorly.
I don't dispute what you're saying, but it still comes down to: the problem is at the top. The solution (as you say) is also at the top. BUT... how many at the top recognize that it's really a problem with THEM, and needs to be fixed?
I think if the majority of them did realize the nature of the problem, they'd take steps to fix it. But there's too much arrogance in upper management for them to see that they are the problem.
I know what the paper is about. But the explanation given in OP and on ScienceBlog (OP's first link) are vague and in the latter case, actually confuse the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously, but really, this kind of thing seems to work for Israel, who would likely be bombed into terrorist kingdom come if they didn't put in measure like this that seem to actually work without pissing everyone off."
You're kind of getting off your own "simple" track, there.
Here's one, about as simple as it can get: get rid of the TSA completely. After all, they haven't demonstrated that they have done a single bit of actually "keeping us secure" since their inception.
All the potential terrorists that have been caught, were caught by other people.
"Nah, never happen. Federal law allows drug screening and it will supersede state law. In fact, federal law requires drug screening for certain jobs and pot is one of the tier 1 drugs specifically outlawed."
Federal law only supersedes State law where (A) the two conflict, AND (B) it's a Constitutional question. The Federal government already knows that its drug laws are unconstitutional usurpations of State power... that's why the Feds have been saying lately they will only try to enforce Federal marijuana laws when STATE laws are violated. People have gotten wise to Federal overreaches, and the Feds want to maintain the illusion of authority where they can.
Ahem... I was speaking about Washington and Colorado. Not New York, or Philadelphia, or wherever.
I know that in many states, your hiring criteria must be directly job-related. Smoking almost never qualifies as being "job related" unless someone is smoking on the job.
Regardless... even though I don't smoke, I would not knowingly and voluntarily work for a company that bans smokers. I have my standards, too.
"There are other issues with it being propietary. It might not call home and be INTENTIONALLY insecure, but it may be UNINTENTIONALLY insecure. There's no room for peer review, since it's completely closed."
Of course it could be. But look at what OP has been dealing with... services that are JUST AS proprietary, and do not use secure protocols, and directly involve 3rd parties.
It's sure as hell an improvement over what he was doing.
Sure, you could set up rsync or some other tech solution... but is he prepared to do those?
"Can't have those guys doing mind-numbingly boring jobs blowing off a little stress when they get home you know..."
Here's an interesting point, though: drug screening for pot will likely become an illegal practice in Washington and Colorado. You can't fire or "not hire" somebody for doing something perfectly legal that has nothing to do with the job, if it isn't happening on the job.
That is to say: hiring criteria has to be job-related. Appearance (clothing) can be job-related. Things you cay in public can (in some circumstances) be deemed job-related. But smoking a joint on your day off is in no way job-related. If it's also legal, then it's probably ILlegal for somebody to make it a hiring criterion (or grounds for firing).
"Can't have those guys doing mind-numbingly boring jobs blowing off a little stress when they get home you know..."
That's my main philosophical objection: these things are known to hurt people who are not hurting anyone else, more than they help anybody. It's a stupid practice.
"I personally love BitTorrent Sync..."
This is what I suggested. Then somebody bitched because it was "proprietary". Well... it is, but the proprietary part is no big deal. The protocol is robust and secure. As for any concern that the program might "call home" with its own secret key... well, that's what network monitors are for. The first time that happened, somebody would scream to high heaven, and its cover would be blown. So the there's about a snowball's chance in hell of a company like BitTorrent doing that.
You know, I kind of like the idea of "Neighborhood Attached Storage". But you would still need at least one trusted party to administer it, if there were more than one account.
"I'm sorry, but in my country, I'd laugh at you if you asked me to take one."
You seem to have a strange idea of the United States. The job he was referring to is a private employment position for a bank, which is a privately-owned business. They can hire (or not) any security guard they want.
Personally, I would laugh at them too. Same with pre-employment drug screening. I simply won't do that. (And the practice has fallen out of favor, anyway.) But remember: it is private parties who did these things; it had nothing to do with government.
"When did your boss get to control your life?"
For a long time, a lot of people in the U.S. let employers get away with this kind of thing. I don't know why. I don't put up with it, nor do any of my friends. It isn't like that so much, anymore. I think the employers finally figured out that they were chasing away all the smart people.
"The US must be much more stupid than I suspected."
If you're judging an entire country by one person's anecdote, you must be much more stupid than I expected.
"Despite the fact that most of the world knows this, there's still one country that thinks such things can be admissible in court."
You don't mean the U.S., do you? Because to the best of my knowledge no jurisdiction in the U.S. allows polygraphs to be used as evidence against a defendant, without their consent. And they'd be stupid to consent.
However, a positive polygraph result can be used in your favor, *IF* the judge will allow it.
"Were you around in the nineties? That was when Clinton used CALEA to force telecoms to build the exact infrastructure that was exploited after 9/11 by Bush, and later Obama."
The lesson is clear: even if the current administration pushes something through while promising not to abuse it, that has absolutely no bearing on whether someone else will, later.
It also would not seem to meet the requirement of non-obviousness.
Seriously... this is basically what LinkedIn does for a living.
"Fires, thefts, etc can happen to pretty much anyone. There's something to be said for encrypted off-site storage. "
This is not a "backup", it is a SYNC application. If anything happens to one copy, everybody else has another copy.
Why pay somebody else for what you already have?
"Not everybody has the time to do it themselves and ultimately you have to pay someone for off-site storage regardless."
No, you don't. With BT Sync you keep the data on your own machines. That's the point: no third party necessary.
"Why not use BitTorrent Sync? It's a 'A proprietary peer-to-peer file synchronization' tool." If your data is important enough to warrant encryption you don't utilize proprietary software.
That's a silly thing to say. Spoken like somebody who spent 30 seconds on Wikipedia and knows nothing more about it.
First, OP is comparing against other "proprietary tools". Further, the "proprietary" part of BTS is inherently simple, transparent, and easy to understand. And the BitTorrent protocol is common and open. Compare that against any of the services to which he refers.
Further yet, considering the advantages of the BitTorrent protocol, if BT Sync were ever to go down (or even if it doesn't), somebody else would produce an app to do it pretty quickly. Likely even open-source.
Frankly, in my opinion it's a non-argument in this particular case.
s/hoop/hook
For the money you're paying a service, why not just hoop up an inexpensive machine for a server, put a TB or two in it, and use BitTorrent Sync?
It's pretty secure, you can share files with others, it's available for all major OSes (including iOS and Android), you don't have to mess with any 3rd parties seeing your data... what more do you want?
"Yeah, because we don't need an international diplomatic platform or UNICEF, eh?"
The flaws in the UN are many, various, and grievous.
UNICEF has done some good things. It's not enough to justify the bad things the UN has done.
I don't have any problem with them if they want to continue to exist. But I think we should stop giving them money to house it in the U.S.
"Maybe he should go work for the UN. They've been trying to get the US government to abandon various forms of harmful behavior for a while. "
The UN only wants to trade what it sees as bad U.S. behavior by its own brand of bad behavior.
Remember that not all members of the U.N. are equal. It was created that way.
While I deplore the actions of my government, and wish it would stop the foolish and damaging things it has been doing, I have reservations because (A) I don't think it will happen unless someone convinces Obama that he's not a king, and (B) I would be happy -- ecstatic even -- if the UN disappeared tomorrow.
"... or it was cheaply made. The latter does happen sometimes."
Well, 2 points for your employer, and another 2 points for you. But in my experience it's usually not optional.
Don't misunderstand me; today I work for myself so all meetings are optional. Still, for the sake of bringing in work I do have them. With customers, though, not employees.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "back door"!!!
The original paper on the very first page of the introduction, says atmospheric CO2 drawdown will reduce CO2 concentration in the oceans, not increase absorption. The latter doesn't make sense anyway, because the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up.
One Kickstarter campaign could feed a whole village for 30 years.
"i agree it is deplorable... and so is the TSA."
Isn't it just a bit curious that this didn't happen a long time ago?
It's amazing sometimes what a lot of Americans will tolerate for the sake of letting the government "keep them safe"... especially given the government's terrible record of doing it.
"Culture comes from the top. If the suits mandated that ALL meetings had to have an agenda with expected outcomes for every line item, AND a business purpose, then in a perfect world, 99% of all business meetings would be eliminated. "
Yes, but don't forget that it's "the suits" who generally organize the useless meetings then run them poorly.
I don't dispute what you're saying, but it still comes down to: the problem is at the top. The solution (as you say) is also at the top. BUT... how many at the top recognize that it's really a problem with THEM, and needs to be fixed?
I think if the majority of them did realize the nature of the problem, they'd take steps to fix it. But there's too much arrogance in upper management for them to see that they are the problem.
No, you missed the point.
I know what the paper is about. But the explanation given in OP and on ScienceBlog (OP's first link) are vague and in the latter case, actually confuse the issue.