Here's an interesting idea though. What if they're not seeing the cost of annoyed customers as actually being above the cost of upgrading the system? In other words, a bleeding effect. It's not necessarily a big wound that kills you, but the little wound that just won't stop leaking.
I know overhead can be a problem, especially with how much overhead there already is in exchanging information. However, the authentication should only be applied to the packets generated by the routing protocol, and not all packets. Therefore, overhead is limited. That is, unless every packet has to be authenticated. I'm not that far in my studies yet.
So... what you're saying is we should all start using that nifty authentication feature several routing protocols support, because it would make routing more secure? I suppose the better question is, why haven't we done it?
A) Never underestimate the stupidity people will engage in when it concerns their money
B) Everyone's already acting like the sky is bleeding falling with these diplomatic cables, so you can imagine the same will happen with a leak on the banks.
C) Continuously saying "How?" is not a valid defensive argument.
If the situation gets out of hand, causing a panic and forcing the banks collapse, what happens to the people's money? Even with guarantees on deposits, there's no way to even come CLOSE to covering everyone. In other words, take Black Tuesday and replace the stock market with the banks.
...would you kindly read the metaphor again? The fire is burning. In the metaphor, that means things are getting done. The difference is whether you keep the process stabilized or let it devolve into chaos.
1st point: I actually included whistle-blowers as people who are not inherently corrupt. Those would be the people who speak out against said people, would they not?
2nd point: It's like a controlled forest fire. If you carefully maintain it and promote stability, nature can run its course without causing more of an impact to people than it should. If instead, you simply sit back and let it burn chaotically, then it's going to cause a lot of unneccessary damage to innocent people. Perhaps it's not the best metaphor, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Yes, no matter what you do, people are going to get hurt, but they'll be hurt a heck of a lot less if you manage the event properly.
We get these stories a lot on/. What's the surprise here? One competitor is talking smack about another. This is what they do. They do it on a regular basis. Wake me up when, I don't know, when Apple admits that the Android might be a good product. Or when hell freezes over. You know, whichever you want to use for your timepiece.
You're making a false assumption. He's not saying all people are corrupt. He's not saying whistle blowers are corrupt. He's saying people who just want to see corruption burn are corrupt. I wouldn't use that word, I'd instead call them extreme. No, corruption is not a good thing, but you have to have a logical progression in excising it. You can't let your desire for vengeance against "The Man" blind you. If you incite chaos you sacrifice stability, and in the process you end up hurting the innocent along with the guilty.
Well, to take a third option, what if he's heavily broadcasting his actions for a reason? You know, the US government scrambled around doing damage control in preparation for the cable leak. Maybe this is his way of saying, "Hey, I have this information and I'm going to give you the chance to do something before it hits the fan."
Devil's Advocate to be sure, but considering the goal of this is transparancy, it would mean a lot more if the bank would come clean itself, rather than wait for a third party who claims to have them already beaten.
What spreads peace is honesty, not duplicity. If two nations can't trust each other, then how on earth do you expect them to be at peace with each other? Yes, the leak does throw diplomacy into chaos, but on the other hand, the chaos wouldn't have existed if everything was on the level the whole time.
Well, when America is the big dog who wants to get into everyone's business, you should expect a proportional amount of dirt on them to be created. You go to where the story is, not where you want the story to be. That said, Wikileaks has leaked information on other nations, and it claims to have information on Russia.
There's a surprising amount of ground covered in the outskirts of a blast radius too. In the book Hiroshima, 5 of the 6 people the writer followed were within 1 mile of ground zero, the closest at about 4000 feet. You might develop health defects from being that close, but you can live with those. You can't live with a shard of glass sticking out of your throat.
False dilemma. You assume there are only two extreme choices for a diplomat to make, when in reality there is a broad range of possibilities. For example, a diplomat could suggest to Mugabe that his policies might not be in the best interests of his country, and perhaps offer suggestions or potential alternatives. Please note this should not be done heavy handed, thus the stack of qualifiers I injected into that statement.
Contrary to popular belief, you can tell someone the truth without being a contemptuous jackass about it. Of course, some people still might not take it well, but I think that says more about the person you're talking to than the person doing the talking.
They could issue a C&D instead of immediately jumping to the lawsuit stage. Let the people know their use of the articles from the Las Vegas Review Journal is not appreciated, and give them a chance to remove it in good faith before pursuing litigation. It would be a nice thing to do, and would probably prevent a lot of the cases on the docket.
Of course, they're probably not doing this, which means you could make a decent conclusion that they're simply out for money.
It's actually a problem of audience expectations. We actually have media with this dynamic a lot, they use anti-heroes. You know, protagonists who are morally questionable. The problem is we want to see the hero, regardless of his actions, and so we rationalize it in our heads that what he's doing is okay. Oftentimes, the anti-hero's actions can be brutal, occasionally moreso than the antagonist.
For two really good examples of this, take a look at the anime Death Note and Code Geass. Both place the camera behind "protagonists" who are downright insane at times. Shoot, Kira loses his damn mind in the first episode. They kill and manipulate with reckless abandon. Nothing is as important as their self-righteous goal. And yet, a lot of people still want them to win because they're the protagonist. It's alright as long as they're the main character.
You know, I think I've finally figured out why there's never a negative review on/,, and no, it's not the "shilling." Reviews on this site are voluntary. It's not a job where you're actively employed and assigned to review something by your boss. When we're not required to do something, we usually only do things we like. So it stands to reason we only get positive reviews, because we only like to write about things we like. If the reviewer didn't like the book, he or she would probably not have the motivation to write out a full review. The trend can invert when you get into hatred territory, but let's face it, there aren't a lot of books terrible enough to write a ranty review about it.
Yes, this is not directly related to the actual review, but since there's already been one post harping on it being a/vertisement, likely the first of several, I figured I'd just post my thoughts on it.
I'm not one of those people who mindlessly bashes on Microsoft for being Microsoft. But what I see here is the president of a Microsoft branch saying one of their competitors is dying. Specifically a competitor for, essentially, a government contract.
Ask early adopters of consoles. 360s had the red ring. Wii had dead pixels. PS3 probably had something, I don't keep up on that sector. I'm pretty sure they've all had disc read problems. It's all about the reliability. It might be nice to have a lightning fast laptop, but if it breaks, it's doubtful you're going to have the resources to fix it. If it's a brand new laptop, you're not going to know how it's likely to break. And since they're in space, you're really not going to know how it's likely to break.
I imagine he had suspicions that many students had cheated, but did he actually have the means to generate the proof? Maybe this was all an impressive bluff. He couldn't pin it on everyone he wanted to, but by making it look like he could, he forced everyone into a difficult position. They could either fold and potentailly pass the class, or hope he was talking out his ass. After all, what you know doesn't neccessarily matter. Instead, what everyone thinks you know matters.
Marketing is a big deal. Microsoft and Apple constantly market things. They're always in your face. The general public knows they exist, and they also know how to use them without too much fuss. Compare this to Linux, which I have never seen a mainstream advertisement for and which can be daunting to a new user.
The situation between Google and Apple here isn't the same as between PC/Mac and Linux. Google markets their Android. I see commercials and advertisements for it everywhere. Yes, it's open technology, but it's open technology people know about. It is also similar to Apple's iPhone, which means people know how to use it. It makes a huge difference in adoption rates.
So I suppose in closing, Google's open technology could indeed win the day, and if you want Linux to take off, you best be getting commercials for it in primetime as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an interesting idea though. What if they're not seeing the cost of annoyed customers as actually being above the cost of upgrading the system? In other words, a bleeding effect. It's not necessarily a big wound that kills you, but the little wound that just won't stop leaking.
Cable (n) - A telegram sent abroad.
You could have at least thrown in a coupon for Bennigan's! Make them feel like they won something!
I know overhead can be a problem, especially with how much overhead there already is in exchanging information. However, the authentication should only be applied to the packets generated by the routing protocol, and not all packets. Therefore, overhead is limited. That is, unless every packet has to be authenticated. I'm not that far in my studies yet.
So... what you're saying is we should all start using that nifty authentication feature several routing protocols support, because it would make routing more secure? I suppose the better question is, why haven't we done it?
Are the Republicans promising to vote it down because they're opposed to Net Neutrality, or because they're opposed to a Democrat? Serious question.
A) Never underestimate the stupidity people will engage in when it concerns their money
B) Everyone's already acting like the sky is bleeding falling with these diplomatic cables, so you can imagine the same will happen with a leak on the banks.
C) Continuously saying "How?" is not a valid defensive argument.
If the situation gets out of hand, causing a panic and forcing the banks collapse, what happens to the people's money? Even with guarantees on deposits, there's no way to even come CLOSE to covering everyone. In other words, take Black Tuesday and replace the stock market with the banks.
...would you kindly read the metaphor again? The fire is burning . In the metaphor, that means things are getting done . The difference is whether you keep the process stabilized or let it devolve into chaos.
1st point: I actually included whistle-blowers as people who are not inherently corrupt. Those would be the people who speak out against said people, would they not?
2nd point: It's like a controlled forest fire. If you carefully maintain it and promote stability, nature can run its course without causing more of an impact to people than it should. If instead, you simply sit back and let it burn chaotically, then it's going to cause a lot of unneccessary damage to innocent people. Perhaps it's not the best metaphor, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Yes, no matter what you do, people are going to get hurt, but they'll be hurt a heck of a lot less if you manage the event properly.
We get these stories a lot on /. What's the surprise here? One competitor is talking smack about another. This is what they do. They do it on a regular basis. Wake me up when, I don't know, when Apple admits that the Android might be a good product. Or when hell freezes over. You know, whichever you want to use for your timepiece.
You're making a false assumption. He's not saying all people are corrupt. He's not saying whistle blowers are corrupt. He's saying people who just want to see corruption burn are corrupt. I wouldn't use that word, I'd instead call them extreme. No, corruption is not a good thing, but you have to have a logical progression in excising it. You can't let your desire for vengeance against "The Man" blind you. If you incite chaos you sacrifice stability, and in the process you end up hurting the innocent along with the guilty.
Well, to take a third option, what if he's heavily broadcasting his actions for a reason? You know, the US government scrambled around doing damage control in preparation for the cable leak. Maybe this is his way of saying, "Hey, I have this information and I'm going to give you the chance to do something before it hits the fan."
Devil's Advocate to be sure, but considering the goal of this is transparancy, it would mean a lot more if the bank would come clean itself, rather than wait for a third party who claims to have them already beaten.
What spreads peace is honesty, not duplicity. If two nations can't trust each other, then how on earth do you expect them to be at peace with each other? Yes, the leak does throw diplomacy into chaos, but on the other hand, the chaos wouldn't have existed if everything was on the level the whole time.
Well, when America is the big dog who wants to get into everyone's business, you should expect a proportional amount of dirt on them to be created. You go to where the story is, not where you want the story to be. That said, Wikileaks has leaked information on other nations, and it claims to have information on Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Leaks
There's a surprising amount of ground covered in the outskirts of a blast radius too. In the book Hiroshima, 5 of the 6 people the writer followed were within 1 mile of ground zero, the closest at about 4000 feet. You might develop health defects from being that close, but you can live with those. You can't live with a shard of glass sticking out of your throat.
False dilemma. You assume there are only two extreme choices for a diplomat to make, when in reality there is a broad range of possibilities. For example, a diplomat could suggest to Mugabe that his policies might not be in the best interests of his country, and perhaps offer suggestions or potential alternatives. Please note this should not be done heavy handed, thus the stack of qualifiers I injected into that statement.
Contrary to popular belief, you can tell someone the truth without being a contemptuous jackass about it. Of course, some people still might not take it well, but I think that says more about the person you're talking to than the person doing the talking.
They could issue a C&D instead of immediately jumping to the lawsuit stage. Let the people know their use of the articles from the Las Vegas Review Journal is not appreciated, and give them a chance to remove it in good faith before pursuing litigation. It would be a nice thing to do, and would probably prevent a lot of the cases on the docket.
Of course, they're probably not doing this, which means you could make a decent conclusion that they're simply out for money.
It's actually a problem of audience expectations. We actually have media with this dynamic a lot, they use anti-heroes. You know, protagonists who are morally questionable. The problem is we want to see the hero, regardless of his actions, and so we rationalize it in our heads that what he's doing is okay. Oftentimes, the anti-hero's actions can be brutal, occasionally moreso than the antagonist.
For two really good examples of this, take a look at the anime Death Note and Code Geass. Both place the camera behind "protagonists" who are downright insane at times. Shoot, Kira loses his damn mind in the first episode. They kill and manipulate with reckless abandon. Nothing is as important as their self-righteous goal. And yet, a lot of people still want them to win because they're the protagonist. It's alright as long as they're the main character.
You know, I think I've finally figured out why there's never a negative review on /,, and no, it's not the "shilling." Reviews on this site are voluntary. It's not a job where you're actively employed and assigned to review something by your boss. When we're not required to do something, we usually only do things we like. So it stands to reason we only get positive reviews, because we only like to write about things we like. If the reviewer didn't like the book, he or she would probably not have the motivation to write out a full review. The trend can invert when you get into hatred territory, but let's face it, there aren't a lot of books terrible enough to write a ranty review about it.
/vertisement, likely the first of several, I figured I'd just post my thoughts on it.
Yes, this is not directly related to the actual review, but since there's already been one post harping on it being a
The new secret spy satellite isn't much of a secret anymore...
I'm not one of those people who mindlessly bashes on Microsoft for being Microsoft. But what I see here is the president of a Microsoft branch saying one of their competitors is dying. Specifically a competitor for, essentially, a government contract.
In other news, water is wet.
Ask early adopters of consoles. 360s had the red ring. Wii had dead pixels. PS3 probably had something, I don't keep up on that sector. I'm pretty sure they've all had disc read problems. It's all about the reliability. It might be nice to have a lightning fast laptop, but if it breaks, it's doubtful you're going to have the resources to fix it. If it's a brand new laptop, you're not going to know how it's likely to break. And since they're in space, you're really not going to know how it's likely to break.
I imagine he had suspicions that many students had cheated, but did he actually have the means to generate the proof? Maybe this was all an impressive bluff. He couldn't pin it on everyone he wanted to, but by making it look like he could, he forced everyone into a difficult position. They could either fold and potentailly pass the class, or hope he was talking out his ass. After all, what you know doesn't neccessarily matter. Instead, what everyone thinks you know matters.
Marketing is a big deal. Microsoft and Apple constantly market things. They're always in your face. The general public knows they exist, and they also know how to use them without too much fuss. Compare this to Linux, which I have never seen a mainstream advertisement for and which can be daunting to a new user.
The situation between Google and Apple here isn't the same as between PC/Mac and Linux. Google markets their Android. I see commercials and advertisements for it everywhere. Yes, it's open technology, but it's open technology people know about. It is also similar to Apple's iPhone, which means people know how to use it. It makes a huge difference in adoption rates.
So I suppose in closing, Google's open technology could indeed win the day, and if you want Linux to take off, you best be getting commercials for it in primetime as well.