All four tips boil down to "don't be an idiot", and not one of them is specific to a "new laptop". Here are my equally-insightful tips:
Don't take your laptop to the beach. It might seem like a great idea, but direct sunlight can be hazardous to your computer's health.
Remove the stickers from the keyboard bezel. You can give them to small children, who will be thrilled with the colorful logos, and then your laptop won't be messy when they fall off in a few years.
Don't use your laptop as an ersatz Frisbee. Again, the big danger here is that your laptop could be exposed to too much direct sunlight. Also, being heavier than most flying toys, your laptop could cause injury to your friends.
Don't use your laptop's fan as a bellows. While it may seem like a lot of air is coming out of your laptop's vents, the fans inside just can't handle the stress of being used as any kind of air compressor.
Even if you think you don't need it, be sure to buy a power cord if your laptop doesn't come with one. Your new laptop is a marvel of technology, but it's likely not very well-trained. You'll need to use the power cord as a leash to prevent it from embarking on a murderous rampage through your house.
Finally, be aware that your chiclet keyboard is not actually made of Chiclets. I say "be aware", because if you actually try to eat your keys, you may cause damage to your new laptop.
The fiduciary duty of executives is to always act in the corporation's best interests. Again, that is simply whatever's in the charter, and there's still a wide range of what can be done. It is absolutely legal for the executives of a publicly-traded corporation to donate all profits to charity. Per the company's charter, it may even be required. If the shareholders don't like it, they can call a vote to replace the executives, as you noted, but that's unlikely to be successful. It's easy enough for the CEO to say "it was a PR move", and point to sentiment polls to justify that the expense this year will mean a much happier buying public when their next product's released, and by so doing become a hero.
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
Corporations have no honour.
Neither do people who make offensive "comedy" videos.
the reasons why corporations cant take comedy is...
...because the "comedy" directly affects their ability to do business elsewhere?
Cute... but I currently work for a Fortune 100 company, at almost the bottom of the hierarchy. Oh yeah, and my facility is closing. I'm intimately familiar with the process.
Please, do keep telling me about life working for corporations.
No, he wasn't fired first. Being fired before being suspended makes no sense. Closing a store would mean he's laid off, and since it's a big closing, there's federal laws in play (WARN act, among others) that require a certain notice period. During that time, he's still fully employed, and should be using the time to go look for another job, while his resume still says he's employed. If asked, he can simply say that the reason he's looking is because the store's closing.
The "evil" corporation made a symbolic gesture that could mean he loses the loyalty reward because he wasn't actually loyal, but there's no effect on his employability.
No, by "hivemind" I mean (in this case) the tendency to assume that anything a corporation does is bad, especially when it negatively impacts someone portrayed as an underdog, without consideration or understanding of the whole situation.
Yes, Safeway closed a store, putting 6000 people out of work. That's terribly sad. While 5,999 continue to be professional, and go on with their lives, and apply to new jobs, this guy started slinging mud at his still-current employer.
So what did Safeway do, on behalf of the remaining stores who still have a job to do that requires a decent public image? They could have fired him on the spot, screwing over his employability, but they didn't. They suspended him, which could cost him his severance package. That package is intended to reward employees who are loyal to the last day, which this guy clearly wasn't.
Sure, it's heart-warming to support the little guy, but he's the one who threw away "common decency and respect". As for me, I'll applaud the manager that decided to suspend him, minimizing the total harm.
Look at each person speaking as you're trying to listen to them, then look at someone else while still trying to follow the same person's conversation. Usually, a few moments after looking away, you'll find the other conversations are more distracting. Your brain is trying to match up what you're hearing with the mouths moving in front of you.
Also, put in one earplug and close your eyes, so you lose spacial awareness. Again, the voices will blend together much more. That's because the brain also uses spacial cues (visual placement, stereo hearing) to separate sound sources.
...American civilians? Or foreigners? Even without a security clearance, American civilians are allowed to work on export-controlled materials that foreigners aren't allowed to see. Some of that work is indeed done on military bases, regardless of whether or not there's an immediate military application.
It doesn't matter much what Shiva Star is used for. It's still on an Air Force base. What else is on that base that the foreigner can get to more easily because of his access to Shiva Star?
Apparently you don't know what "access" is, in a government-secret sense.
We've built up a program as a joint effort. That's fine for that program. That does not mean there's a blanket trust for Canadians to access all programs at all locations. Military secrecy is handled on a need-to-know basis, and outside of NORAD, the Canadians do not need to know.
What do the politicians do to justify their financial gain?
Sorry, but I'm not cynical enough to think that politicians wake up every morning asking "How can I screw over the world for my own benefit today?". Rather, they try to fix the world as they can, but with so many different definitions of "fix", the only way to get anything accomplished is to have the most influence... and that means wasting time building political favor. To an outsider, it looks like the politician is just collecting power, but to the politician, they're just gathering the necessary alliances to finally be productive.
Meanwhile, the politicians with a different perspective are also gathering power to fix things their way, and they can't understand why those idiots on the other side can't just back off and let the obviously-better choice pass. They also feel like they're wasting time gathering allies, so when election time rolls around, everyone talks about compromise and bipartisanship. It's not just campaign propaganda. It's a genuine frustration with the general problem that nobody's fix-everything plans are perfect.
The US government sees itself as the altruistic champion of freedom for the world. Granted, it's a defined subset of "freedom" that doesn't include silly things like "privacy", but rather more desirable American things like the freedom to choose what giant fast-food chain prepares your daily supply of saturated fat.
Politicians don't stay in politics unless they believe their country has the potential to be great. The past several rounds of American politicians have perfected that arrogance to the point where they actually believe America is not just better than other countries, but that those other countries would be better off if they'd just get out of the way and let American morality and culture take over.
They want you to be happy and free, living the American dream... whether or not that's what you want.
The big problem little organizations like this have in pulling off their first attack is finding enough qualified people to do it without accidentally picking up an informant...
The person doing the recruiting, though, would have a recruiter's contact pattern. The NSA could see that, then know where those informants should contact.
Since an attack on substations would need to several somewhat-coordinated teams to be effective, and would require some intelligence as to where is most vulnerable, it's exactly the sort of attack the NSA thinks they can catch.
You could try reading. Having a human second tier means the computer system doesn't need to be as accurate, neatly avoiding the original intractable problem:
It's almost impossible for any learning model to have a precision that high.
Chalnoth's accuracy calculation is wrong. To identify 50 terrorists out of 300,000,000 people, we need 100% accuracy. The 99.99998% figure is the number of people the system must accurately reject, and it must also accurately flag 0.00002% as terrorists. 100% must be accurately identified.
Rather than needing to perfectly identify exactly 50 people out of 300 million, the problem as I framed it is now identifying 10,000 candidates out of those 300 million, and doing it every month. I haven't the time to compute acceptable error rate presently (and frankly don't remember how for this kind of selection), but it's easier than being perfect.
That may be your expectation, and I suspect it's shared by most of Slashdot, but it may not be the expectation of society as a whole, which is what the court is considering.
Slashdot Mirror
All four tips boil down to "don't be an idiot", and not one of them is specific to a "new laptop". Here are my equally-insightful tips:
If the attacker has compromised that one system, they could just decrypt the encrypted file.
The fiduciary duty of executives is to always act in the corporation's best interests. Again, that is simply whatever's in the charter, and there's still a wide range of what can be done. It is absolutely legal for the executives of a publicly-traded corporation to donate all profits to charity. Per the company's charter, it may even be required. If the shareholders don't like it, they can call a vote to replace the executives, as you noted, but that's unlikely to be successful. It's easy enough for the CEO to say "it was a PR move", and point to sentiment polls to justify that the expense this year will mean a much happier buying public when their next product's released, and by so doing become a hero.
Nope. Publicly-traded companies have more reporting requirements, but they still can't ignore their charter.
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
Corporations have no honour.
Neither do people who make offensive "comedy" videos.
the reasons why corporations cant take comedy is...
...because the "comedy" directly affects their ability to do business elsewhere?
Cute... but I currently work for a Fortune 100 company, at almost the bottom of the hierarchy. Oh yeah, and my facility is closing. I'm intimately familiar with the process.
Please, do keep telling me about life working for corporations.
No, he wasn't fired first. Being fired before being suspended makes no sense. Closing a store would mean he's laid off, and since it's a big closing, there's federal laws in play (WARN act, among others) that require a certain notice period. During that time, he's still fully employed, and should be using the time to go look for another job, while his resume still says he's employed. If asked, he can simply say that the reason he's looking is because the store's closing.
The "evil" corporation made a symbolic gesture that could mean he loses the loyalty reward because he wasn't actually loyal, but there's no effect on his employability.
No, by "hivemind" I mean (in this case) the tendency to assume that anything a corporation does is bad, especially when it negatively impacts someone portrayed as an underdog, without consideration or understanding of the whole situation.
Yes, Safeway closed a store, putting 6000 people out of work. That's terribly sad. While 5,999 continue to be professional, and go on with their lives, and apply to new jobs, this guy started slinging mud at his still-current employer.
So what did Safeway do, on behalf of the remaining stores who still have a job to do that requires a decent public image? They could have fired him on the spot, screwing over his employability, but they didn't. They suspended him, which could cost him his severance package. That package is intended to reward employees who are loyal to the last day, which this guy clearly wasn't.
Sure, it's heart-warming to support the little guy, but he's the one who threw away "common decency and respect". As for me, I'll applaud the manager that decided to suspend him, minimizing the total harm.
No, it's on Slashdot because it's a nice anti-corporate story to stir up outrage. The hivemind loves those.
An employee made a YouTube video that offended his employer, and he was suspended for it. This is not news.
More fun audio tricks:
Look at each person speaking as you're trying to listen to them, then look at someone else while still trying to follow the same person's conversation. Usually, a few moments after looking away, you'll find the other conversations are more distracting. Your brain is trying to match up what you're hearing with the mouths moving in front of you.
Also, put in one earplug and close your eyes, so you lose spacial awareness. Again, the voices will blend together much more. That's because the brain also uses spacial cues (visual placement, stereo hearing) to separate sound sources.
...American civilians? Or foreigners? Even without a security clearance, American civilians are allowed to work on export-controlled materials that foreigners aren't allowed to see. Some of that work is indeed done on military bases, regardless of whether or not there's an immediate military application.
So in other words, you are that cynical. Got it.
...And which compartment is Shiva Star in? The anybody-can-access public space?
It doesn't matter much what Shiva Star is used for. It's still on an Air Force base. What else is on that base that the foreigner can get to more easily because of his access to Shiva Star?
Apparently you don't know what "access" is, in a government-secret sense.
We've built up a program as a joint effort. That's fine for that program. That does not mean there's a blanket trust for Canadians to access all programs at all locations. Military secrecy is handled on a need-to-know basis, and outside of NORAD, the Canadians do not need to know.
Power and influence to what end, though?
What do the politicians do to justify their financial gain?
Sorry, but I'm not cynical enough to think that politicians wake up every morning asking "How can I screw over the world for my own benefit today?". Rather, they try to fix the world as they can, but with so many different definitions of "fix", the only way to get anything accomplished is to have the most influence... and that means wasting time building political favor. To an outsider, it looks like the politician is just collecting power, but to the politician, they're just gathering the necessary alliances to finally be productive.
Meanwhile, the politicians with a different perspective are also gathering power to fix things their way, and they can't understand why those idiots on the other side can't just back off and let the obviously-better choice pass. They also feel like they're wasting time gathering allies, so when election time rolls around, everyone talks about compromise and bipartisanship. It's not just campaign propaganda. It's a genuine frustration with the general problem that nobody's fix-everything plans are perfect.
...has no desire for my well being...
[citation needed]
The US government sees itself as the altruistic champion of freedom for the world. Granted, it's a defined subset of "freedom" that doesn't include silly things like "privacy", but rather more desirable American things like the freedom to choose what giant fast-food chain prepares your daily supply of saturated fat.
Politicians don't stay in politics unless they believe their country has the potential to be great. The past several rounds of American politicians have perfected that arrogance to the point where they actually believe America is not just better than other countries, but that those other countries would be better off if they'd just get out of the way and let American morality and culture take over.
They want you to be happy and free, living the American dream... whether or not that's what you want.
The big problem little organizations like this have in pulling off their first attack is finding enough qualified people to do it without accidentally picking up an informant...
The person doing the recruiting, though, would have a recruiter's contact pattern. The NSA could see that, then know where those informants should contact.
Since an attack on substations would need to several somewhat-coordinated teams to be effective, and would require some intelligence as to where is most vulnerable, it's exactly the sort of attack the NSA thinks they can catch.
You could try reading. Having a human second tier means the computer system doesn't need to be as accurate, neatly avoiding the original intractable problem:
It's almost impossible for any learning model to have a precision that high.
Only tangentially, nope, probably not, and certainly not.
Chalnoth's accuracy calculation is wrong. To identify 50 terrorists out of 300,000,000 people, we need 100% accuracy. The 99.99998% figure is the number of people the system must accurately reject, and it must also accurately flag 0.00002% as terrorists. 100% must be accurately identified.
Rather than needing to perfectly identify exactly 50 people out of 300 million, the problem as I framed it is now identifying 10,000 candidates out of those 300 million, and doing it every month. I haven't the time to compute acceptable error rate presently (and frankly don't remember how for this kind of selection), but it's easier than being perfect.
That may be your expectation, and I suspect it's shared by most of Slashdot, but it may not be the expectation of society as a whole, which is what the court is considering.
Closer to "You went streaking across campus, so it's unreasonable that you're mad at people for taking pictures."
Coincidentally, that is a winter tradition at a university I know of, and students in the education department are warned strongly not to participate.
Anybody remember Sodaconstructor?