It's not your cell phone you should be worried about. It's the rather impressive amount of computing power available on the network side, along with a few boxes installed by our friends in suits. You know, the ones your tax dollars pay the salaries of. Having worked in communications for both government and private organizations for ten years, I can tell you there's some interesting stuff out there.
You're missing the point. The line between local and remote vulnerabilities is indeed being blurred these days, given the rise in network services running on workstations (instead of just servers). Add in the fact that even on servers application-level vulnerabilities can be greatly exacerbated by the potential for kernel exploits. This was neatly illustrated with the recent Linux kernel vulnerability, which essentially turned every remote exploit that allowed arbitrary code execution into a kernel exploit. I happen to work for a company that has an extremely large Linux deployment across several datacenters; while not a cause for panic, these issues are becoming harder to concretely classify as the difference between workstation and server becomes blurred and people deploy increasingly complex application setups on servers.
Funny you should mention fat pipes and lots of hardware; I happen to work for a company where I could easily secure such resources for a fun project like this. I think I'll skip the government grant (nice, btw) and keep it private sector;).
Don't do it front of an Apple shrine. Better to find a Debian shrine; you'll get more mileage in the afterlife, and you won't be eternally bonded to Steve Jobs.
I suppose I want a complete picture to completely eliminate any means of obscuring spending. Understand, I'm not inclined to nitpick over paperclips; having all the data doesn't mean I'd automatically start yelling at some low-level government office purchasing agent.
I believe this really comes down to a basic need for complete transparency in government spending, so the People as a whole can make educated decisions and hold their elected officials (regardless of the level) responsible for decisions that involve our tax dollars. There is no justification for a lack of transparency with public funds.
I fully agree that the photoshopping was an amateurish mistake. The individual responsible for assembling the ad copy should have simply used another image.
The evidence, once again, is basic human behavior. If I were to use Caucasians for advertisements in Kinshasa, do you honestly expect anyone to believe they'd be as effective as a campaign targeted at local demographics? If you do believe this, I'm sorry to say your views and reality branched somewhere, and there's very little I can do to help you. Would you call the locals there racist? I sure wouldn't.
It's not that the cultural preference is for a lack of black people. It's the fact that there is a distinct lack of black people in Poland. Whether you like it or not, people instinctively make associations (or don't) based on this thing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of: race.
I'm not advocating discriminating against an individual on the basis of race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that it people from a particular culture will not automatically identify with someone from another culture in the same manner as they would with someone from their locale. That's not racism, it's basic human behavior.
It was Kodak. I've got insider information that says the majority of the pixels in the image were exact matches to scans from Polaroids taken nearly fifteen years ago.
You've devolved to simply playing semantics. I'm beginning to strongly suspect you're trolling, and I'm also beginning to wonder about your level of education.
I think we're getting somewhere now. I'd like answers from our elected officials on a couple of different fronts: (1) justification of expenses that the public wasn't fully informed of, or grossly overran their stated budgetary constraints, and (2) an explanation for why the public is outright deceived in cases where funds don't end up anywhere near their stated destination.
Public officials, from the Senate down to the local level, can't be held responsible for these issues if there isn't a clear and indisputable means of accessing and auditing all the data. I want people held responsible.
That's a hilarious statement. Different cultures have different preferences for a wide variety of things. These preferences are frequently broken down clearly across ethnic and racial lines. Growing up in a diverse environment, I can appreciate these differences, and enjoy experiencing what different cultures have to offer. Have you been living under a rock, or are you attempting to enforce some kind of personal fantasy where everyone's a clone?
I want access to all expenses. I don't care how large or small they are. I want to be able to hold every responsible party in the entire chain accountable for spending according to what has been publicly agreed upon. I fail to understand how this is difficult for you to grasp.
Then I think you're foolish and misguided. Are you seriously trying to convince the world that certain products and market segments don't appeal more to some races/cultures more than others, or that targeting maketing campaigns at local populations based on demographic norms is racist? If so, you're deluded.
It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with speaking to a particular demographic in a marketing campaign. I'm going to use the same example I've used three other times in this discussion: advertising campaigns in Atlanta frequently heavily favor African Americans, because they represent a majority of the population in many areas. It's not racist, and I'm not offended by this as a white person.
I'm from Atlanta. Advertising there is frequently heavily, heavily biased toward African Americans, who happen to be represent the majority of the population in many parts of the city. That's not racist, either.
Actually, you've got that completely backward. I care a lot of less about expensive paperclips and a lot more about comparing/contrasting "official" spending reports with the actual places money gets diverted to. As in "by the hundreds of millions" diverted.
Slashdot Mirror
enabling the jet to pull off violent maneuvers like a flat spin â" where the jet literally spins around on its axis
But what everyone here really wants to know is this:
Nah, I wouldn't have to kill you. I'd just go to prison for a long time.
It's not your cell phone you should be worried about. It's the rather impressive amount of computing power available on the network side, along with a few boxes installed by our friends in suits. You know, the ones your tax dollars pay the salaries of. Having worked in communications for both government and private organizations for ten years, I can tell you there's some interesting stuff out there.
You're missing the point. The line between local and remote vulnerabilities is indeed being blurred these days, given the rise in network services running on workstations (instead of just servers). Add in the fact that even on servers application-level vulnerabilities can be greatly exacerbated by the potential for kernel exploits. This was neatly illustrated with the recent Linux kernel vulnerability, which essentially turned every remote exploit that allowed arbitrary code execution into a kernel exploit. I happen to work for a company that has an extremely large Linux deployment across several datacenters; while not a cause for panic, these issues are becoming harder to concretely classify as the difference between workstation and server becomes blurred and people deploy increasingly complex application setups on servers.
I think you forgot the part about Google paying the Italians protection money.
"Nice search engine you got there. Shame if something was to happen to it."
Funny you should mention fat pipes and lots of hardware; I happen to work for a company where I could easily secure such resources for a fun project like this. I think I'll skip the government grant (nice, btw) and keep it private sector ;).
This is exactly why I want the data is machine-readable form, so it can be analyzed programmatically.
Don't do it front of an Apple shrine. Better to find a Debian shrine; you'll get more mileage in the afterlife, and you won't be eternally bonded to Steve Jobs.
Real geeks check their mail on a hacked up PSP running FreeBSD.
I did, about two hours ago, in reply to your previous request. Did you miss it somehow?
Not really. This just means more Windows boxes floating around on the Internet.
Now you can run Windows in a VM when people come over to avoid the shame of admitting you run Gentoo?
/me goes back to his Mac and Debian servers.
I suppose I want a complete picture to completely eliminate any means of obscuring spending. Understand, I'm not inclined to nitpick over paperclips; having all the data doesn't mean I'd automatically start yelling at some low-level government office purchasing agent.
I believe this really comes down to a basic need for complete transparency in government spending, so the People as a whole can make educated decisions and hold their elected officials (regardless of the level) responsible for decisions that involve our tax dollars. There is no justification for a lack of transparency with public funds.
I fully agree that the photoshopping was an amateurish mistake. The individual responsible for assembling the ad copy should have simply used another image.
The evidence, once again, is basic human behavior. If I were to use Caucasians for advertisements in Kinshasa, do you honestly expect anyone to believe they'd be as effective as a campaign targeted at local demographics? If you do believe this, I'm sorry to say your views and reality branched somewhere, and there's very little I can do to help you. Would you call the locals there racist? I sure wouldn't.
It's not that the cultural preference is for a lack of black people. It's the fact that there is a distinct lack of black people in Poland. Whether you like it or not, people instinctively make associations (or don't) based on this thing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of: race.
I'm not advocating discriminating against an individual on the basis of race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious fact that it people from a particular culture will not automatically identify with someone from another culture in the same manner as they would with someone from their locale. That's not racism, it's basic human behavior.
It was Kodak. I've got insider information that says the majority of the pixels in the image were exact matches to scans from Polaroids taken nearly fifteen years ago.
You've devolved to simply playing semantics. I'm beginning to strongly suspect you're trolling, and I'm also beginning to wonder about your level of education.
I think we're getting somewhere now. I'd like answers from our elected officials on a couple of different fronts: (1) justification of expenses that the public wasn't fully informed of, or grossly overran their stated budgetary constraints, and (2) an explanation for why the public is outright deceived in cases where funds don't end up anywhere near their stated destination.
Public officials, from the Senate down to the local level, can't be held responsible for these issues if there isn't a clear and indisputable means of accessing and auditing all the data. I want people held responsible.
Race doesn't exist, friend.
That's a hilarious statement. Different cultures have different preferences for a wide variety of things. These preferences are frequently broken down clearly across ethnic and racial lines. Growing up in a diverse environment, I can appreciate these differences, and enjoy experiencing what different cultures have to offer. Have you been living under a rock, or are you attempting to enforce some kind of personal fantasy where everyone's a clone?
I want access to all expenses. I don't care how large or small they are. I want to be able to hold every responsible party in the entire chain accountable for spending according to what has been publicly agreed upon. I fail to understand how this is difficult for you to grasp.
Then I think you're foolish and misguided. Are you seriously trying to convince the world that certain products and market segments don't appeal more to some races/cultures more than others, or that targeting maketing campaigns at local populations based on demographic norms is racist? If so, you're deluded.
It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with speaking to a particular demographic in a marketing campaign. I'm going to use the same example I've used three other times in this discussion: advertising campaigns in Atlanta frequently heavily favor African Americans, because they represent a majority of the population in many areas. It's not racist, and I'm not offended by this as a white person.
I'm from Atlanta. Advertising there is frequently heavily, heavily biased toward African Americans, who happen to be represent the majority of the population in many parts of the city. That's not racist, either.
Actually, you've got that completely backward. I care a lot of less about expensive paperclips and a lot more about comparing/contrasting "official" spending reports with the actual places money gets diverted to. As in "by the hundreds of millions" diverted.