It has nothing to do with the gun culture. It's about criminals. Since the laws were passed, those who chose not to comply are criminals. There are also those who get guns through other illegal means that are also criminals. I would think the ones who would sell guns illegally are more likely in the second group. I don't believe that failing to comply with a law that makes ones property illegal at the stroke of a pen means those people are just biding their time before they go on a killing spree.
So, if I understand correctly, the goal is to change the behavior of criminals through new laws? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought they were criminals because of their lack of respect for the law, not because there weren't enough laws. This solution seems impractical in the short run, and history doesn't show too much promise for the long run.
I would be more interested in knowing what short or long term social benefit was gained by making the first group of people criminals.
Moderators: this thread isn't offtopic, the topic is a flame war. =)
Why would you expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard when we have seen that not to be true time and time again? I would like your expectation to be true, but I base my expectations on experience, not on wishes.
IBM is paying in PR for that particular decision each time their history is cited. However, IBM does not likely care about your feelings on the matter. If you have any influence in a large company, you can refuse to do business with them based on that incident. However, that seems short sighted as well. There are not likely any of the people who made those decisions still working for IBM. How does a company pay pennance for past sins? It also ignores the fact that there are a lot of companies today that would help design, build and run mass execution facilities for a bit of Nazi gold. They are given a pass because they weren't around back then.
Many US based companies employ child labor in other countries. It would be nice if they would stop doing that. There will always be companies that will use child labor to make their products. All individuals can do is refuse to buy $200 shoes from a company that produced them for $0.16 by using child labor and let others know what is happening as well.
If they are succeeding, it's likely because they are focusing on the bottom line as much as anyone else. Using profit as a motivation is neutral, it is neither good nor evil. I believe the GP is suggesting that principle cannot override profit.
With gas prices going way up, I suspect biodiesel is much more cost effective to produce and sell. It is possible to do things that are good for the environment and consumers while still being profit driven. It's just much easier to make a profit by stealing.
Corporations don't exist to make the world a better place. They do not exist to enforce human rights standards. They do not exist to stand up against repressive governments who do not want their people to know of "freedom" or "Taiwan". They do not exist to help people. They exist to make money. There is no money in respecting human rights. On the other hand, there is a lot of money in China. All of the products we buy that are made in China make sure of that.
Do you really believe that corporations or governments exist to help people? What are you doing to help improve human rights in China? Expecting someone else to take care of the problem isn't going to change anything.
No, I say that as if it were a common trait. I was responding to 'Else, if the telecommunication companies don't care if their system doesn't work during a crisis, then "WTF?" ', which seems to presume companies should care about providing services in an extreme case.
The problem with being disaster resistant is that it costs more. Batteries are nice because most power interruptions are supply(as in electricity off), not delivery(as in power lines physically removed) issues. Batteries can be monitored automatically and replaced every few years. A generator has moving parts and needs fuel. This means it has to be maintained more often to remain functional. Generators can be rented for infrequent needs, but when a large number of people need the same resources at the same time, I wouldn't expect them to be available.
I like the idea of limiting usage to text messaging. Falling back to text and emergency communications only when operating in a diminished capacity would be a useful failure mode.
First, the technical reasons: They're horrible radios. They transmit with very little power and do not have a great receiver. Even if they were peer-to-peer enabled, you'd only be able to talk to people who are close enough to receive your signal. That might be good enough for trying to find someone in a store, but it's little more than line of sight communications. To fix these problems, you'd need a bigger battery and a better antenna. If you're willing to carry that with you, a handheld ham radio is still going to be a better choice.
Of course, the real problem is the business reasons: Phones, like many services, depend on forcing all traffic through the providers system for billing purposes. If customers were not forced to have their calls go through cell towers, they might start wondering why they're even paying for the service.
Telecommunication companies do not expect their systems to work under such an extreme load. The infrastructure planners were doing their jobs by figuring out how to provide service to the most likely volumes of traffic at the lowest cost. Do you think these companies exist to help people? They exist to make money. They do this by charging people as much as they can for services and paying as little as possible for the resources to provide the services.
Learning and doing new things is important. I would consider this an interview topic. Whether the individual is self-taught or takes courses is up to the individual.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the quality of the course is not as important. I'd seriously question the judgement of someone who was more interested in being able to say they completed a course than developed proficiency in a new skill.
If no law is being violated, you're only referring to a civil case. Any practice which does not violate the law and is applied uniformly can be defended in court.
A separate issue is your ability to manipulate a group of jurors to vote in your favor. If my lawyer is more compelling than yours, I could sue you for some made up reason and have a good chance at winning. That's a criticism of our juries, which has very little to do with the law.
I occaisionally interview for senior technical positions. If I saw "A+ Certified" on a resume, I would presume the person does not have enough experience. I've found too many people who hold that out as a qualification consider themselves experts. I'm interested in hiring the people that others consider experts. Of course, it would only be a negative if it were portrayed as a primary qualification.
If you want someone to prove themselves, make that part of the interviewing process. The biggest concern many would have about teenagers is that they're notoriously flaky as a class. That's not the kind of thing you can find out in an interview, and certifications only focus on the ability to score well on standardized tests. In my experience, standardized testing isn't a big component of real life, whereas punctuality, reliability and work ethic are.
I was in high school when I interviewed for my first job. The job was database programming and I had been referred by the programming teacher at my HS. After talking to the owner of the company about my experience, I sat down at a computer and wrote a program to do data conversion. This was in 1988, so I'm sure other people have figured out this tactic by now. I've had 10 interviews, 8 have required a demonstration of ability and I've gotten 9 of the jobs. The one I didn't get only had HR style technical questions.
I had to use MySQL for a work project where I did exactly that style of oopsie on my project, the company's now primary DNS database. Fortunately, I was dumping the database into RCS every 15 minutes, so I promptly restored the database and tried to remember what I had been doing right before the oops.
I use and recommend PostgreSQL, but that particular company was big on using MySQL for everything, including financial transactions.
Unfortunately, I see some schools focusing on computers as the ends instead of the means. My Jr. High school no longer offers electronics, metal or wood shop. We had all of those 20 years ago when I went there. As a programmer who develops solutions for people, I can recognize the value of understanding how other people do their jobs an use their tools. Having the ability to use a computer is good, but having another ability that gives you a reason to use the computer is no less valuable.
Are you under the impression that politicians do things for well thought out and logical reasons? Here I just thought they did things that sounded good and would look good as bullet points on a future campaign. I'm not saying I think that's a good reason to do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to claim something similar. Most people wallowing in decadence can't relate to what would really help all the little people.
Actually, I think there is some serious research about the disproportionately high occurrences of certain psychological disorders in people with high intelligence. Though, my memory is currently failing to recall which disorders I was reading about when I saw this.
The joke combining the two criteria was pretty intuitive. The problem with checklist criteria is that they're rarely as boolean as they appear.
One idea that I explained to a coworker once (who thought I was absolutely nuts for having the idea) was that it is possible to rate things independent of casting judgement upon them. For example, a "really good car crash" could describe an event where you could barely tell that they once were cars. Most people would say this was a "really bad car crash", because a crash is bad. This is one trait that is not uncommon in techies and engineers. The idea of striving to do something better without pondering if it should be done at all. For example, in WWII, the Germans came up with very efficient ways to exterminate millions of people. From an engineering standpoint, they solved the problem well. From a social standpoint, they were monsters. The point of this segment is that pairing violence and intelligence isn't anything new.
I'm only semi-joking, but have you considered the homeless people who have laptops? I've read of people who are living out of their cars in the bay area after losing their house. Without connectivity, they'd have a hard time finding a decent job. Keep in mind that this is an area where you can't just get a job at McDonalds to pay rent while you look for a better job. I'm sure the real goal is to make wireless connectivity more convenient for the people who can afford to pay for it, but others can benefit as well.
A boss of a boss I used to have is the kind of person described in the article. I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find that he goes to church every week. These people create an image of being someone very different than their actions would suggest.
Churches are no different than any other business. They always need more money, which means attracting new customers (though, they call them members) and use the same tactics and methods as companies. I say that from the perspective of someone who used to run accounting systems for a church. The only difference is that people will leave the church if they are overtly evil.
When I was young, my mom's church had kids collecting money to feed the poor and the goal was $3,000. At the same time, they were collecting to buy a new pipe organ for $500,000. There were many things like that which support my belief that many churches serve a god other than the one they advertise.
When the majority of people in a position of power have these negative traits, it's hard to be an ethical and moral person who can also make enough money to support their family. It's easy to say the people who do what they are told are part of the problem, but it's hard to stand up for what is right if it can put you out of a job in an economy where a lot of people are unsuccessfully looking for jobs.
We're all living in the same world. The whole business vs academic thing is a distraction. There are people who abuse other people everywhere. In business, there are bosses who will rate people poorly on reviews just to make them less desireable for a promotion, even though their work is good. The group I was in before was run by a guy who was clearly a psychopath who wanted subservient psychopaths working for him. When he left to go to another part of the company (he burned too many bridges), all his little cronies followed him. The one that was my boss actually praised the controlling behavior. It's pretty sick, but that's the real world.
Are you in a position to influence the hiring of people? I'm curious because I've seen groups in corporate environments where these traits are highly desirable.
Bad things are going to happen anyway, at least the evil geniuses keep it interesting. Anyway, one of the traits is that these people seem to be quite agreeable, so as long as they're doing more good than harm, they're not much different from everyone else.
What if someone solves complex differential equations in their head to help design grizzly, macabre ways of murdering people? It gets a little fuzzy there.
In the business world, it's even fuzzier, because it's harder to differentiate between someone who lays off 1000 people because they're mean from someone who lays them off so the company can stay profitable and keep jobs for everyone else.
V for Vendetta could make for a good movie, in theory. It may not be Superman, but it's not quite limited to some dude's D&D gaming circle. I've seen it in most bookstores where I've looked. They wouldn't stock it if no one would buy it.
But seriously, Hollywood ran out of new ideas years ago. They remade Flubber. How much more proof do you need that the idea barrel is empty?
As has been mentioned, it's the job of the application to determine whether or not encryption is necessary and what type. There is no one size fits all solution that could be implemented at the network layer without creating more problems than it solves. If you're sending financial transaction information, the additional time to encrypt and sign is worthwhile. It takes time to encrypt and decrypt data. For VOIP, that may be considered an unnecessary and unacceptable inconvenience. However, from an application development standpoint, not offerring the user that choice is pretty lame.
Another reason for not having a default level of encryption at the network layer is that it takes a long time to get everyone to upgrade. Poor encryption can be worse than none in the sense that non-security-geeks don't know the difference and may assume that their connections are secure. It's better to start with the assumption that they are insecure and if that is not acceptable, mitigate against that risk with an appropriate level of encryption in the application.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with the gun culture. It's about criminals. Since the laws were passed, those who chose not to comply are criminals. There are also those who get guns through other illegal means that are also criminals. I would think the ones who would sell guns illegally are more likely in the second group. I don't believe that failing to comply with a law that makes ones property illegal at the stroke of a pen means those people are just biding their time before they go on a killing spree.
So, if I understand correctly, the goal is to change the behavior of criminals through new laws? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought they were criminals because of their lack of respect for the law, not because there weren't enough laws. This solution seems impractical in the short run, and history doesn't show too much promise for the long run.
I would be more interested in knowing what short or long term social benefit was gained by making the first group of people criminals.
Moderators: this thread isn't offtopic, the topic is a flame war. =)
Why would you expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard when we have seen that not to be true time and time again? I would like your expectation to be true, but I base my expectations on experience, not on wishes.
IBM is paying in PR for that particular decision each time their history is cited. However, IBM does not likely care about your feelings on the matter. If you have any influence in a large company, you can refuse to do business with them based on that incident. However, that seems short sighted as well. There are not likely any of the people who made those decisions still working for IBM. How does a company pay pennance for past sins? It also ignores the fact that there are a lot of companies today that would help design, build and run mass execution facilities for a bit of Nazi gold. They are given a pass because they weren't around back then.
Many US based companies employ child labor in other countries. It would be nice if they would stop doing that. There will always be companies that will use child labor to make their products. All individuals can do is refuse to buy $200 shoes from a company that produced them for $0.16 by using child labor and let others know what is happening as well.
If they are succeeding, it's likely because they are focusing on the bottom line as much as anyone else. Using profit as a motivation is neutral, it is neither good nor evil. I believe the GP is suggesting that principle cannot override profit.
With gas prices going way up, I suspect biodiesel is much more cost effective to produce and sell. It is possible to do things that are good for the environment and consumers while still being profit driven. It's just much easier to make a profit by stealing.
Corporations don't exist to make the world a better place. They do not exist to enforce human rights standards. They do not exist to stand up against repressive governments who do not want their people to know of "freedom" or "Taiwan". They do not exist to help people. They exist to make money. There is no money in respecting human rights. On the other hand, there is a lot of money in China. All of the products we buy that are made in China make sure of that.
Do you really believe that corporations or governments exist to help people? What are you doing to help improve human rights in China? Expecting someone else to take care of the problem isn't going to change anything.
No, I say that as if it were a common trait. I was responding to 'Else, if the telecommunication companies don't care if their system doesn't work during a crisis, then "WTF?"
', which seems to presume companies should care about providing services in an extreme case.
The problem with being disaster resistant is that it costs more. Batteries are nice because most power interruptions are supply(as in electricity off), not delivery(as in power lines physically removed) issues. Batteries can be monitored automatically and replaced every few years. A generator has moving parts and needs fuel. This means it has to be maintained more often to remain functional. Generators can be rented for infrequent needs, but when a large number of people need the same resources at the same time, I wouldn't expect them to be available.
I like the idea of limiting usage to text messaging. Falling back to text and emergency communications only when operating in a diminished capacity would be a useful failure mode.
First, the technical reasons:
They're horrible radios. They transmit with very little power and do not have a great receiver. Even if they were peer-to-peer enabled, you'd only be able to talk to people who are close enough to receive your signal. That might be good enough for trying to find someone in a store, but it's little more than line of sight communications. To fix these problems, you'd need a bigger battery and a better antenna. If you're willing to carry that with you, a handheld ham radio is still going to be a better choice.
Of course, the real problem is the business reasons:
Phones, like many services, depend on forcing all traffic through the providers system for billing purposes. If customers were not forced to have their calls go through cell towers, they might start wondering why they're even paying for the service.
Telecommunication companies do not expect their systems to work under such an extreme load. The infrastructure planners were doing their jobs by figuring out how to provide service to the most likely volumes of traffic at the lowest cost. Do you think these companies exist to help people? They exist to make money. They do this by charging people as much as they can for services and paying as little as possible for the resources to provide the services.
Why do you list the MCSE on the second AND third lines?
Learning and doing new things is important. I would consider this an interview topic. Whether the individual is self-taught or takes courses is up to the individual.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the quality of the course is not as important. I'd seriously question the judgement of someone who was more interested in being able to say they completed a course than developed proficiency in a new skill.
If no law is being violated, you're only referring to a civil case. Any practice which does not violate the law and is applied uniformly can be defended in court.
A separate issue is your ability to manipulate a group of jurors to vote in your favor. If my lawyer is more compelling than yours, I could sue you for some made up reason and have a good chance at winning. That's a criticism of our juries, which has very little to do with the law.
I occaisionally interview for senior technical positions. If I saw "A+ Certified" on a resume, I would presume the person does not have enough experience. I've found too many people who hold that out as a qualification consider themselves experts. I'm interested in hiring the people that others consider experts. Of course, it would only be a negative if it were portrayed as a primary qualification.
If you want someone to prove themselves, make that part of the interviewing process. The biggest concern many would have about teenagers is that they're notoriously flaky as a class. That's not the kind of thing you can find out in an interview, and certifications only focus on the ability to score well on standardized tests. In my experience, standardized testing isn't a big component of real life, whereas punctuality, reliability and work ethic are.
I was in high school when I interviewed for my first job. The job was database programming and I had been referred by the programming teacher at my HS. After talking to the owner of the company about my experience, I sat down at a computer and wrote a program to do data conversion. This was in 1988, so I'm sure other people have figured out this tactic by now. I've had 10 interviews, 8 have required a demonstration of ability and I've gotten 9 of the jobs. The one I didn't get only had HR style technical questions.
I had to use MySQL for a work project where I did exactly that style of oopsie on my project, the company's now primary DNS database. Fortunately, I was dumping the database into RCS every 15 minutes, so I promptly restored the database and tried to remember what I had been doing right before the oops.
I use and recommend PostgreSQL, but that particular company was big on using MySQL for everything, including financial transactions.
Unfortunately, I see some schools focusing on computers as the ends instead of the means. My Jr. High school no longer offers electronics, metal or wood shop. We had all of those 20 years ago when I went there. As a programmer who develops solutions for people, I can recognize the value of understanding how other people do their jobs an use their tools. Having the ability to use a computer is good, but having another ability that gives you a reason to use the computer is no less valuable.
Are you under the impression that politicians do things for well thought out and logical reasons? Here I just thought they did things that sounded good and would look good as bullet points on a future campaign. I'm not saying I think that's a good reason to do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to claim something similar. Most people wallowing in decadence can't relate to what would really help all the little people.
Actually, I think there is some serious research about the disproportionately high occurrences of certain psychological disorders in people with high intelligence. Though, my memory is currently failing to recall which disorders I was reading about when I saw this.
The joke combining the two criteria was pretty intuitive. The problem with checklist criteria is that they're rarely as boolean as they appear.
One idea that I explained to a coworker once (who thought I was absolutely nuts for having the idea) was that it is possible to rate things independent of casting judgement upon them. For example, a "really good car crash" could describe an event where you could barely tell that they once were cars. Most people would say this was a "really bad car crash", because a crash is bad. This is one trait that is not uncommon in techies and engineers. The idea of striving to do something better without pondering if it should be done at all. For example, in WWII, the Germans came up with very efficient ways to exterminate millions of people. From an engineering standpoint, they solved the problem well. From a social standpoint, they were monsters. The point of this segment is that pairing violence and intelligence isn't anything new.
I'm only semi-joking, but have you considered the homeless people who have laptops? I've read of people who are living out of their cars in the bay area after losing their house. Without connectivity, they'd have a hard time finding a decent job. Keep in mind that this is an area where you can't just get a job at McDonalds to pay rent while you look for a better job. I'm sure the real goal is to make wireless connectivity more convenient for the people who can afford to pay for it, but others can benefit as well.
A boss of a boss I used to have is the kind of person described in the article. I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find that he goes to church every week. These people create an image of being someone very different than their actions would suggest.
Churches are no different than any other business. They always need more money, which means attracting new customers (though, they call them members) and use the same tactics and methods as companies. I say that from the perspective of someone who used to run accounting systems for a church. The only difference is that people will leave the church if they are overtly evil.
When I was young, my mom's church had kids collecting money to feed the poor and the goal was $3,000. At the same time, they were collecting to buy a new pipe organ for $500,000. There were many things like that which support my belief that many churches serve a god other than the one they advertise.
When the majority of people in a position of power have these negative traits, it's hard to be an ethical and moral person who can also make enough money to support their family. It's easy to say the people who do what they are told are part of the problem, but it's hard to stand up for what is right if it can put you out of a job in an economy where a lot of people are unsuccessfully looking for jobs.
We're all living in the same world. The whole business vs academic thing is a distraction. There are people who abuse other people everywhere. In business, there are bosses who will rate people poorly on reviews just to make them less desireable for a promotion, even though their work is good. The group I was in before was run by a guy who was clearly a psychopath who wanted subservient psychopaths working for him. When he left to go to another part of the company (he burned too many bridges), all his little cronies followed him. The one that was my boss actually praised the controlling behavior. It's pretty sick, but that's the real world.
Are you in a position to influence the hiring of people? I'm curious because I've seen groups in corporate environments where these traits are highly desirable.
Bad things are going to happen anyway, at least the evil geniuses keep it interesting. Anyway, one of the traits is that these people seem to be quite agreeable, so as long as they're doing more good than harm, they're not much different from everyone else.
The ones who don't get into office.
What if someone solves complex differential equations in their head to help design grizzly, macabre ways of murdering people? It gets a little fuzzy there.
In the business world, it's even fuzzier, because it's harder to differentiate between someone who lays off 1000 people because they're mean from someone who lays them off so the company can stay profitable and keep jobs for everyone else.
V for Vendetta could make for a good movie, in theory. It may not be Superman, but it's not quite limited to some dude's D&D gaming circle. I've seen it in most bookstores where I've looked. They wouldn't stock it if no one would buy it.
But seriously, Hollywood ran out of new ideas years ago. They remade Flubber. How much more proof do you need that the idea barrel is empty?
A 15 drink minimum? No wonder why the galaxy is spinning.
As has been mentioned, it's the job of the application to determine whether or not encryption is necessary and what type. There is no one size fits all solution that could be implemented at the network layer without creating more problems than it solves. If you're sending financial transaction information, the additional time to encrypt and sign is worthwhile. It takes time to encrypt and decrypt data. For VOIP, that may be considered an unnecessary and unacceptable inconvenience. However, from an application development standpoint, not offerring the user that choice is pretty lame.
Another reason for not having a default level of encryption at the network layer is that it takes a long time to get everyone to upgrade. Poor encryption can be worse than none in the sense that non-security-geeks don't know the difference and may assume that their connections are secure. It's better to start with the assumption that they are insecure and if that is not acceptable, mitigate against that risk with an appropriate level of encryption in the application.