Yet this line of thinking has apparently led to the collapse of the US consumer credit system.
Just as the 2008 recession could have been avoided if only people with a formal education in finance had been making the big decisions?
Or could it be that companies don't care about risks with external costs?
Seems most companies are not concerned with information security unless it directly impacts their bottom line. Therefore we need to make incidences such as this extremely painful, even to the point of criminal prosecution and corporate dissolution with assets seized, to push shareholders and board members to start demanding due care and not just paying lip service to compliance.
A big problem with distributing resources in areas most in need is that you have to protect it, or the resources will disappear because corrupt local governments and war lords will hoard it for their own gain.
We already know the things required to solve these problems. Food, education & birth control.
Education and birth control may be counter to local sentiment and culture, and may be violently opposed. Good or bad, imposing such a huge change could be considered imperialistic and may come across as "Us white people need to save those brown/black people from themselves," and still ultimately require force to implement.
One does not simply establish rule of law (or a new set of laws), but you'd pretty much have to if you want to make these changes and feed people. Given recent examples, such an endeavor is a multi-decade commitment, because leaving too early risks leaving a power vacuum, possibly compounding the problem. It takes at least a couple generations to learn the process of running a democratic society. And what do we do if they keep voting in the same corrupt government over and over? Overthrow it and restore "democracy" each time? As Turkey has shown, that's not viable in the long run.
I'm eager to learn of any viable plan to bring these countries into the modern era without force, in any reasonable timescale. I'm very conflicted on the choice to use force in this way, but I believe it's necessary to accomplish the stated goals within one lifetime.
That is a huge assumption. If it's not the case it could have a chilling effect on the employer to pay the employee proportionally the value they bring the company.
People with the means to care about other people, do. Those without the means, prioritize themselves. News at 11.
Why is it elitist for the well-to-do to give a shit about other people? I don't follow that line of logic.
If I'm doing well for myself and I choose to pay +20% at a store that has better employee compensation, why is that a bad thing? Doesn't that mean people in my community are less likely to fall into poverty and require social services?
I'd rather not end up paying higher taxes to care of these people, I'd rather it be in the form of higher quality goods and services if I can afford it. I can adjust my budget for premium vs. economy products as my financial situation changes, but my tax liability is far less flexible.
I guess I'm just an elitist asshole for not thinking "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE."
How dare the Bourgeois care for other people's welfare!
Why are people born into poverty generally stay poor? Why are people born into wealth generally stay wealthy? "Poor people teach their children to be poor; rich people teach their children to be rich." You could blame the parents, but it's generally poor people all the way down.
There are outliers, but to a large extent people are a product of their environment. The parents are christian; the person is probably christian. The community is conservative; the person is probably conservative. That's the reason elections (in many places) are intentionally not based on majority votes; people who live near one another generally have similar views.
Parents do what they can to give their children the best chance of success. But if "you did it all on your own," are you saying that all the effort your parents, teachers, and anyone who happened to help you along the way, was wasting their time on you? You would still be just as successful without their efforts?
It seems like every group has agitated members that seem incapable of having civil discussions, and take any disagreement, political or otherwise, as a personal attack. It's quite likely they will accuse you of being a member of the opposing political party if you disagree with them, usually with a derisive or pejorative tone.
Ask any left-leaning person that has an assortment of firearms, or any right-leaning person that thinks social safety nets are not necessarily a bad thing.
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
Is there a reason to punish the mentally incompetent beyond what is required to ensure public safety? Confining them to a mental institution seems like a better option than prison.
Apparently the god of abraham didn't think much of the principles of freedom when he killed 14 thousand people that chose not to blindly follow moses. numbers 16:1-30
Or one can be torn apart if you don't obey god's law. isaiah 5:24-25 (What is the democratic process for changing "god's law?")
It only took two minutes to find a couple passages that demonstrate how incompatible christian fundamentalism is with democratic principles. We've been fortunate that very few take the bible that seriously, but who knows when that could change.
I think the idea is that the original code is more of a proof of concept; it only needs to identify a need and how feasible is it to meet that need. It doesn't have to be salvageable to do that. If the terrible code increases productivity by a significant margin, there may be a business case for hiring experts to re-implement or salvage at their discretion.
The real problem here is management being oblivious to critical dependencies. It's management's negligence that's allowing their department to become more and more dependent on something that wasn't designed from the ground up to be maintainable.
when they finally do hire a qualified expert to help, they restrict the expert to fixing the unfixable
That's also covered under "failure of management." If there wasn't an existing proof of concept, written terribly, would this same management even allow the expert to "create a good, appropriate solution to the original problem," or would they tie the expert's hands and force them down a poor design path? I believe so.
The solution to bad management isn't more qualified experts, it's better management. Good management not only knows when to bring in the experts, but to also heed their advice and guidance, because they know to do otherwise would be a waste of resources.
I don't think everyone needs to call a licensed plumber to unclog a toilet, nor does small business bookkeeping require years of schooling. I see it more as a failure of management, because as the stakes become higher, they fail to properly manage the critical dependencies of the organisation by bringing in more qualified talent as the need arises. Business owners that can identify when they've reached their limit in a skill and hire someone more competent, are more likely to succeed and grow than those who don't. This scenario isn't limited to computers, it could be any area of expertise within an organisation.
The Excel macro created by the boss' nephew is fine up to a point, then it's up to management to step in, declare amateur hour over, and hire the required expertise if the Excel macro's usefulness outgrows the nephew's limited skillset. Ideally the call is made before it becomes mission critical. The point is no matter how skilled and qualified an employee is, it will not compensate for management being asleep at the wheel.
And you call the new employees a buncha goddamn whiners because they don't want to learn "old stuff."
They are probably concerned with investing a significant amount of time learning skills that may not be broadly marketable. Sure, it makes you highly marketable to a niche market, but it's continuously shrinking. That might seem risky to someone that probably has another 35 years of their career ahead of them. Being able to quit and move anywhere and find a job has it's advantages.
On the other hand, the work may not be interesting enough at the wages offered. Companies compete for employees with money, time off, and among other things, interesting work. If interesting work wasn't a factor there wouldn't be so many postdocs qualifying for food stamps.
Not sure I agree risk aversion or the desire for fulfilling work qualifies one to be a whiner.
Knowing old stuff makes you valuable.
That highly depends on what stuff you're referring to. I don't see many job ads for 8-track player repair techs, but maybe the handful of them out there are making good money.
-----
IMHO, a more long term solution is, for a company spending millions on a piece of equipment, to have more control over the software. To do otherwise means you're at the mercy of the manufacturer, and sometimes it's not in their interest for customers to keep using the same, perfectly running, old equipment.
So if a subset of men behave in a non-masculine way, are they not "men being men?" Why is "men being men" only defined as being outwardly masculine?
Its not hate my generation is exhibiting, its masculinity.
Social norms change all the time. If you don't follow the norms, don't be surprised when you are ostracized. If you expect others to have thick skin, you need to as well, and not be troubled when "labeled racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc." and accept the consequences for your actions.
we have let the radical feminists decide what social norms are for the rest of us
It seems like you yourself are trying to define your own set of social norms, by deeming non-masculinity in men as undesirable. The very same thing you seem unhappy with "radical feminists" doing. Why do you get to define what being a man means?
The young men of the special snowflake generation are a bunch of pussies
You make the assumption that non-masculinity is not a choice a man would knowingly choose, and only the result of drugs suppressing that aspect. Why is being a "pussy" not a valid choice?
Why not let men decide for themselves who they want to be without labeling them "jocks" or "pussies" when they don't conform to our expectations?
Wouldn't this be an example of selection bias? Pictures of bird deflections wouldn't be informative, unless most deflections resulted with birds leaving a visible smear on the aircraft.
We can't really quantify the probability of a strike vs. a deflection if we don't know the number of deflected birds.
Which is why it's important to validate backups. The most common story is the proverbial organisation routinely backing up to tape, only to find out the tape was bad when they needed to restore. A random spot check is better than nothing.
An alternative is to setup version control for each file, and if the delta between changes increases by X%, it should send an alert to the user.
If you're a Carrier network or large Enterprise, you have two options- Juniper or Cisco. Nobody else makes hardware that even comes close when you're talking routing and switching.
Cisco has the market in the enterprise, but the service provider space is a bit more competitive, simply because service providers generally don't like to single source major components to their core business. Many are now looking into white box configurations with SDN.
There's no good reason you should even have the device's management interface directly exposed to the public internet.
Many times the management interface of a routing device are not used in leu of a management IP address on a software loopback interface. This is so the device is reachable in the event of a link failure, because the management address is associated with an interface (software) that will never be withdrawn from the routing table. All the management IP needs to be reachable is at least one functioning routed interface.
If you want to be able to remotely manage your equipment, you setup a VPN
I'm not sure I would trust an SSL, or better yet a TLS encrypted tunnel over an SSH connection. The OpenBSD guys tend to be pretty paranoid about security; the OpenSSL community doesn't have the same reputation. Ultimately it comes down to the implementation that is more trusted; for example, I would trust an an OpenBSD based OpenSSH server over a Cisco device for receiving SSH connections directly from the internet.
which will then give access to your internal, privately addressed (i.e. not publicly routable) management network, and access the equipment from the inside
I don't think of private addressing as a strong security measure. Having adequate access controls at administrative boundaries would be more effective and less complex. It's been repeated many times on this forum and others, NAT is not a security feature.
You should ***NEVER*** be able to directly open a connection, either via SSH or any other method, from the 'wild' internet... it's just flat out stupid even if there are no flaws in your equipment.
Multiple layers of security are definitely helpful. It diminishes the effectiveness if the same credentials are used to secure each layer.
Only then the system will be modified to include an ignore list. Only for the "safety and security" of VIPs of course.
Which is why I think it would be interesting if ordinary people had their own plate readers, because at least in such a panopticon everyone would be watched equally.
Seems like there's quite a few people commenting that taxis require special regulation because they are spending more time on the road than a normal person driving for personal reasons. Insurance companies take mileage into account when quoting a rate.
How does this differ from delivering food and other products in a personal vehicle?
Slashdot Mirror
Yet this line of thinking has apparently led to the collapse of the US consumer credit system.
Just as the 2008 recession could have been avoided if only people with a formal education in finance had been making the big decisions?
Or could it be that companies don't care about risks with external costs?
Seems most companies are not concerned with information security unless it directly impacts their bottom line. Therefore we need to make incidences such as this extremely painful, even to the point of criminal prosecution and corporate dissolution with assets seized, to push shareholders and board members to start demanding due care and not just paying lip service to compliance.
We already know the things required to solve these problems. Food, education & birth control.
Education and birth control may be counter to local sentiment and culture, and may be violently opposed. Good or bad, imposing such a huge change could be considered imperialistic and may come across as "Us white people need to save those brown/black people from themselves," and still ultimately require force to implement.
One does not simply establish rule of law (or a new set of laws), but you'd pretty much have to if you want to make these changes and feed people. Given recent examples, such an endeavor is a multi-decade commitment, because leaving too early risks leaving a power vacuum, possibly compounding the problem. It takes at least a couple generations to learn the process of running a democratic society. And what do we do if they keep voting in the same corrupt government over and over? Overthrow it and restore "democracy" each time? As Turkey has shown, that's not viable in the long run.
I'm eager to learn of any viable plan to bring these countries into the modern era without force, in any reasonable timescale. I'm very conflicted on the choice to use force in this way, but I believe it's necessary to accomplish the stated goals within one lifetime.
If two people are doing equal work, [...]
That is a huge assumption. If it's not the case it could have a chilling effect on the employer to pay the employee proportionally the value they bring the company.
the LGBQTBDSMLMNOPQRST...militant movement [...]
Like the militant movement in the 60s?
http://www.economist.com/news/...
People with the means to care about other people, do. Those without the means, prioritize themselves. News at 11.
Why is it elitist for the well-to-do to give a shit about other people? I don't follow that line of logic.
If I'm doing well for myself and I choose to pay +20% at a store that has better employee compensation, why is that a bad thing? Doesn't that mean people in my community are less likely to fall into poverty and require social services?
I'd rather not end up paying higher taxes to care of these people, I'd rather it be in the form of higher quality goods and services if I can afford it. I can adjust my budget for premium vs. economy products as my financial situation changes, but my tax liability is far less flexible.
I guess I'm just an elitist asshole for not thinking "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE."
How dare the Bourgeois care for other people's welfare!
Why are people born into poverty generally stay poor? Why are people born into wealth generally stay wealthy? "Poor people teach their children to be poor; rich people teach their children to be rich." You could blame the parents, but it's generally poor people all the way down.
There are outliers, but to a large extent people are a product of their environment. The parents are christian; the person is probably christian. The community is conservative; the person is probably conservative. That's the reason elections (in many places) are intentionally not based on majority votes; people who live near one another generally have similar views.
Parents do what they can to give their children the best chance of success. But if "you did it all on your own," are you saying that all the effort your parents, teachers, and anyone who happened to help you along the way, was wasting their time on you? You would still be just as successful without their efforts?
http://www.economist.com/news/...
The people haven't been civil...basically ever.
It seems like every group has agitated members that seem incapable of having civil discussions, and take any disagreement, political or otherwise, as a personal attack. It's quite likely they will accuse you of being a member of the opposing political party if you disagree with them, usually with a derisive or pejorative tone. Ask any left-leaning person that has an assortment of firearms, or any right-leaning person that thinks social safety nets are not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know, you seem pretty smug in your assertion. /s
The justification for leniency makes no sense to me. If a criminal is driven by impulse and lack of emotional control, shouldn't he (and it is usually a "he") get a longer sentence, since he is a greater danger to other people?
Is there a reason to punish the mentally incompetent beyond what is required to ensure public safety? Confining them to a mental institution seems like a better option than prison.
Quoting the bible is a bold strategy.
Apparently the god of abraham didn't think much of the principles of freedom when he killed 14 thousand people that chose not to blindly follow moses. numbers 16:1-30
Or one can be torn apart if you don't obey god's law. isaiah 5:24-25 (What is the democratic process for changing "god's law?")
It only took two minutes to find a couple passages that demonstrate how incompatible christian fundamentalism is with democratic principles. We've been fortunate that very few take the bible that seriously, but who knows when that could change.
The butt hurt must be strong on Slashdot for a comment whining about a joke to get +5.
terrible solution not even salvagable
I think the idea is that the original code is more of a proof of concept; it only needs to identify a need and how feasible is it to meet that need. It doesn't have to be salvageable to do that. If the terrible code increases productivity by a significant margin, there may be a business case for hiring experts to re-implement or salvage at their discretion.
The real problem here is management being oblivious to critical dependencies. It's management's negligence that's allowing their department to become more and more dependent on something that wasn't designed from the ground up to be maintainable.
when they finally do hire a qualified expert to help, they restrict the expert to fixing the unfixable
That's also covered under "failure of management." If there wasn't an existing proof of concept, written terribly, would this same management even allow the expert to "create a good, appropriate solution to the original problem," or would they tie the expert's hands and force them down a poor design path? I believe so.
The solution to bad management isn't more qualified experts, it's better management. Good management not only knows when to bring in the experts, but to also heed their advice and guidance, because they know to do otherwise would be a waste of resources.
I agree to a point.
I don't think everyone needs to call a licensed plumber to unclog a toilet, nor does small business bookkeeping require years of schooling. I see it more as a failure of management, because as the stakes become higher, they fail to properly manage the critical dependencies of the organisation by bringing in more qualified talent as the need arises. Business owners that can identify when they've reached their limit in a skill and hire someone more competent, are more likely to succeed and grow than those who don't. This scenario isn't limited to computers, it could be any area of expertise within an organisation.
The Excel macro created by the boss' nephew is fine up to a point, then it's up to management to step in, declare amateur hour over, and hire the required expertise if the Excel macro's usefulness outgrows the nephew's limited skillset. Ideally the call is made before it becomes mission critical. The point is no matter how skilled and qualified an employee is, it will not compensate for management being asleep at the wheel.
Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?
That's a good example of a Loaded Question.
And you call the new employees a buncha goddamn whiners because they don't want to learn "old stuff."
They are probably concerned with investing a significant amount of time learning skills that may not be broadly marketable. Sure, it makes you highly marketable to a niche market, but it's continuously shrinking. That might seem risky to someone that probably has another 35 years of their career ahead of them. Being able to quit and move anywhere and find a job has it's advantages.
On the other hand, the work may not be interesting enough at the wages offered. Companies compete for employees with money, time off, and among other things, interesting work. If interesting work wasn't a factor there wouldn't be so many postdocs qualifying for food stamps.
Not sure I agree risk aversion or the desire for fulfilling work qualifies one to be a whiner.
Knowing old stuff makes you valuable.
That highly depends on what stuff you're referring to. I don't see many job ads for 8-track player repair techs, but maybe the handful of them out there are making good money.
-----
IMHO, a more long term solution is, for a company spending millions on a piece of equipment, to have more control over the software. To do otherwise means you're at the mercy of the manufacturer, and sometimes it's not in their interest for customers to keep using the same, perfectly running, old equipment.
The system is rigged against men being men.
So if a subset of men behave in a non-masculine way, are they not "men being men?" Why is "men being men" only defined as being outwardly masculine?
Its not hate my generation is exhibiting, its masculinity.
Social norms change all the time. If you don't follow the norms, don't be surprised when you are ostracized. If you expect others to have thick skin, you need to as well, and not be troubled when "labeled racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc." and accept the consequences for your actions.
we have let the radical feminists decide what social norms are for the rest of us
It seems like you yourself are trying to define your own set of social norms, by deeming non-masculinity in men as undesirable. The very same thing you seem unhappy with "radical feminists" doing. Why do you get to define what being a man means?
The young men of the special snowflake generation are a bunch of pussies
You make the assumption that non-masculinity is not a choice a man would knowingly choose, and only the result of drugs suppressing that aspect. Why is being a "pussy" not a valid choice? Why not let men decide for themselves who they want to be without labeling them "jocks" or "pussies" when they don't conform to our expectations?
will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?
What is the accepted form of rejoicing when one receives a citation? I don't want to be accused "[continuing] on with the usual group-think."
Wouldn't this be an example of selection bias? Pictures of bird deflections wouldn't be informative, unless most deflections resulted with birds leaving a visible smear on the aircraft.
We can't really quantify the probability of a strike vs. a deflection if we don't know the number of deflected birds.
Which is why it's important to validate backups. The most common story is the proverbial organisation routinely backing up to tape, only to find out the tape was bad when they needed to restore. A random spot check is better than nothing.
An alternative is to setup version control for each file, and if the delta between changes increases by X%, it should send an alert to the user.
If you're a Carrier network or large Enterprise, you have two options- Juniper or Cisco. Nobody else makes hardware that even comes close when you're talking routing and switching.
Cisco has the market in the enterprise, but the service provider space is a bit more competitive, simply because service providers generally don't like to single source major components to their core business. Many are now looking into white box configurations with SDN.
There's no good reason you should even have the device's management interface directly exposed to the public internet.
Many times the management interface of a routing device are not used in leu of a management IP address on a software loopback interface. This is so the device is reachable in the event of a link failure, because the management address is associated with an interface (software) that will never be withdrawn from the routing table. All the management IP needs to be reachable is at least one functioning routed interface.
If you want to be able to remotely manage your equipment, you setup a VPN
I'm not sure I would trust an SSL, or better yet a TLS encrypted tunnel over an SSH connection. The OpenBSD guys tend to be pretty paranoid about security; the OpenSSL community doesn't have the same reputation. Ultimately it comes down to the implementation that is more trusted; for example, I would trust an an OpenBSD based OpenSSH server over a Cisco device for receiving SSH connections directly from the internet.
which will then give access to your internal, privately addressed (i.e. not publicly routable) management network, and access the equipment from the inside
I don't think of private addressing as a strong security measure. Having adequate access controls at administrative boundaries would be more effective and less complex. It's been repeated many times on this forum and others, NAT is not a security feature.
You should ***NEVER*** be able to directly open a connection, either via SSH or any other method, from the 'wild' internet... it's just flat out stupid even if there are no flaws in your equipment.
Multiple layers of security are definitely helpful. It diminishes the effectiveness if the same credentials are used to secure each layer.
Only then the system will be modified to include an ignore list. Only for the "safety and security" of VIPs of course. Which is why I think it would be interesting if ordinary people had their own plate readers, because at least in such a panopticon everyone would be watched equally.
MS is usually bound by law to physically have government data stored in an EU country and to never move it outside. This applies to O365 too.
Would this also apply to Google Docs as well? If so, Google Docs should have also been considered.
My point is that those in high cost of living areas are compensated for it and win in the long run.
That's assuming salaries scale with cost of living favorably.
Seems like there's quite a few people commenting that taxis require special regulation because they are spending more time on the road than a normal person driving for personal reasons. Insurance companies take mileage into account when quoting a rate. How does this differ from delivering food and other products in a personal vehicle?