Cookies and video games my ass, my brother was in fifth grade last year (myself being in my last year of college), and we discussed many things in a level of detail that I sadly think is superior to a good portion of the adults that I talk to.
You also aren't doing very well on sentence structure, either.
So, those adults know LESS than kids in the 5th grade.
But at one time in the past those adults WERE in the 5th grade.
So, did those many adults undergo some kind of brain trauma and forget the stuff they knew when they were in the 5th grade?
First off, the 5th grader isn't going to understand the different in income. As long as the engineer and the athlete both bring in enough money for cookies and video games, it's the same to them.
Second, what needs to be taught is that the engineering graduates make (median) $X per year.
While the kids on the various sports teams make (median) $X-y per year.
Sure, there are some that make a LOT more than the engineers but those few are less than 1% of the pool of athletes.
Third, the 5th graders probably don't understand "career" at that point. They'd be as happy learning to be a cowboy as they would be learning engineering. Probably happier.
... which at the same time saves the group some 40 million Kroner [about $7.7 million] worth of proprietary licenses.
I hope that they're going to use SOME of that savings to hire a programmer or two to help improve LibreOffice. In Denmark, of course. Might as well keep the work local and focus on local requirements.
Until we do something about the motivating factors behind spam - that is, the economics of spam - we will continue to get nowhere, while wasting more time and money on the problem.
The problem with that approach is that the economics of spam are totally slanted in favour of the spammer.
One machine can send out MILLIONS of spam messages per day.
And it only takes a couple of people purchasing something to make it profitable.
Instead, focus on understanding the spam process. I was able to reduce 99%+ of spam at one place I worked using SpamAssassin, clamAV, a Bayesian filter and lots of spam trap email addresses on a smart host.
So your saying that in order for the tea partiers to have a valid point of view... they can not participate in the existing programs they are against even though they have no choice of opting out of them?
I'll say that. In order for the people in the Tea Party to have a valid point, they cannot WILLINGLY BENEFIT from the programs they publicly oppose.
But you want them to contribute to carrying your ass and not take advantage of it themselves because they disagree with it.
You should look at that statement more closely.
So they are not opposed to CERTAIN people benefiting from the government programs.
It's just when the WRONG people benefit that they have a problem.
... if you think they shouldn't use what they are forced to pay for just because they would rather have an option of doing something otherwise.
No. The problem is that they're complaining about CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE using the programs while THEY THEMSELVES benefit from those programs.
They want the BENEFITS (as evidenced by them voluntarily applying for those benefits and using them) but they don't want to pay the taxes if CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE will also get the benefits.
Good luck finding anyone who doesn't support eliminating waste and fraud in all gov't spending, including Medicare and Medicaid.
The problem is that there isn't a line item labeled "waste and fraud" in the various budgets for the various departments.
If there was, it would be easy to eliminate it.
As it is, one man's "governmental waste" is another man's "necessary government function".
The people telling the government to reduce oil business regulations... were the same people complaining that the government did not do enough to prevent the BP oil rig disaster.
Everyone wants less government... until they need the services provided by the government.
The results are favorable to Microsoft, so there will be a ton of skepticism, investigation, and outright dismissal.
Yep. Mostly because Microsoft has a history of purchasing favourable "findings" from "independent" "research" firms.
However, when studies favorable to this particular community's ideologies are announced, none of that occurs, even though the same kinds of skepticism can and should be applied.
Kind of. The process and parameters should always be checked. But the other browsers do not have a history of their parent companies purchasing favourable "findings".
It's called "learning from experience". There is no reason to forget every past instance when evaluating a new instance. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And when the guy in the next office comes over to tell me about some damn facebook game he's playing now,...
What is with that at work? Why do people want to tell me about Mafia Wars or their latest WoW raid? Why do they think I have any interest in that at all?
Remember, the people in Congress are always up for re-election (unless retiring).
Now if a few groups like The Eagles decide to make this a public issue, then their fans may be persuaded to vote in a different person who is more agreeable to The Eagles' argument.
It's difficult for the various corporate interests to simultaneously claim to be pro-artist-rights with regard to "intellectual property" and also claim that the artist was nothing more than a day-laborer with no rights to the finished product.
Because it actually addresses the potential threat of a terrorist posing as a pilot -- that they could take control of an airplane and use it as a cruise missile.
Yeah, allow me to repeat myself.
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Yeah.
Someone posing as a pilot might be able to get through the proposed "security" system.
Posing as a pilot and getting control of an airplane... are you serious?
The reason is that the pilot has hands on the controls and can crash the plane, if they wish.
And that's the logical failure of your argument. You hear "pilot" and you think "has hands on the controls".
Meanwhile, a terrorist can impersonate a pilot to get through security (or get licensed by a small airline) and move multiple bombs through security to hand off to other terrorists on other flights.
The TSA introduces 1 weakness into the system and now every single flight is more vulnerable.
All you need to do is screen their identity. Make sure that the person is who they claim to be. If so, then off they go.
Again, no. You'd have to be able to tell who is NOT a terrorist. Not who IS a pilot.
While true, for it to be a useful one has to posit that the TSA is at all competent in screening out the baddies. That's demonstrably false.
Fuck no! Where did you get that idea? This all hinges around the TSA being unable to tell pilots from passengers from terrorists.
The ONLY way it would work is if the TSA could tell (with 100% reliability) who was a pilot and who was a terrorist.
Which is why EVERYONE should have to go through the SAME screening as everyone else. If it works,
Further, there is nothing in the current screening system that would prevent a 'fake' pilot to get into the secure area.
This isn't about stopping anyone from going through security.
This is about checking EVERYONE'S luggage with the same process.
You can get through security with a fake boarding pass. It's been done. Look on Google for people who have done it.
He / She couldn't carry a bomb, but if they had the appropriately forged credentials they could carry a firearm.
But under this new plan, they COULD get a bomb through. They could get multiple bombs through. And they could hand those bombs to terrorists flying on other airplanes. So ONE guy getting through security reduces the security of MULTIPLE flights.
This is finally a good idea from the TSA, albeit a tiny, halting step forward that won't change much.
No. It show a complete failure to understand basic security.
Basically, with limited resources and the hidden costs of not scanning pilots, is it worth it to not scan pilots? Probably not.
And the consequences of FAILING with a false positive (terrorist mistaken for authorized pilot).
I think the problem here is the same as with the TSA in general. People hear "pilot" and they think "person flying the plane". Which assumes 100% verification of every pilot, every time, at every location. Including 100% verification of NON-pilots.
Once you get past that assumption, the flaws are obvious.
If he can do that, why not just keep on impersonating, then crash the plane?
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Impersonating a pilot to get past TSA security is one thing. Convincing the real pilot to let you fly the plane... yeah, that's something else.
Well gee, then it sounds like having screening specific to identifying pilots -- like they are doing -- would be a million times more useful than making them go through the passenger screening which is designed to keep weapons and bombs off the plane, which a terrorist-pilot would have no fucking use for!
Why would it be "a million times more useful"?
Why NOT run the pilots and crew through the regular security? Including checking their bags?
Because once you create a group where you do NOT check their luggage, you create an opening for terrorists to move large amounts of weapons past security.
So, 20 terrorists want to take down 20 planes. 1 terrorist spends the time to get listed as a pilot for some minor airline. Then that 1 terrorist moves 100 pounds of explosives (and detonators) through security without being checked. The other 20 terrorists buy tickets and travel without weapons. Once past security, the "pilot" hands the bombs off to the 20 terrorists.
And all that would have been avoided if the pilots had to go through the same screening as everyone else.
Here's a good thought experiment, I post in a/. story that everyone should email their congressman and let them know what they think. Did I just "hack" Congress?
Good point. But let's go back 100 years to a time before email. If you ran that same story in a NEWSPAPER and 1,000 people sent LETTERS to Congress, would that be an attack on Congress?
Beyond that, if their email system is such a creaking rust bucket that it can't handle a thousand emails, it was hardly a "sound" system.
Sticking with the 100 years ago scenario... suppose the Post Office gave those 1,000 letters to Congress to one 60 year old mailman to deliver. And the weight was so much that he fell down and broke a leg.
Are YOU guilty of assault and battery because he broke his leg carrying the letters that your newspaper story led people to write?
Law enforcemnt profiles individuals/suspects when seeking info 2 prevent or deal w/other crimes;Why can't this be done @ airports 2 prevent?
No. Profiling is done AFTER a crime has been committed. And it is based upon the evidence found at the crime scene.
And it gives you a location and a time to match the people matching the profile against.
She is wrong because you would end up with far more false positives when you try to profile BEFORE a crime is committed.
Not to mention that the real terrorists would be able to guess what the profile was and recruit people who did not match it.
The problem is that the LEFT WING handcuffs how we do things because it might "offend" the terrorists ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Muslims and incite them to commit acts of terrorism.
And your phrasing of that is the problem. You're conflating "terrorists" and "Muslims". Nice. So all that a terrorist would have to do to get through your profile would be to claim to be Christian.
Honestly? As someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices? It kinda looks like one.
More correctly... SOME improvised explosive devices have home-made electronics as components.
Others, such as the shoe bomber's and captain underpants', do not.
Home-made electronics do NOT look like IEDs. Some IEDs contain home-made electronics.
The difference is important when you compare the number of times home-made electronics have been mistaken for IEDs versus the number of IEDs that have been caught being smuggled into airports in the USofA.
Since it seems to be coming down to a binary choice (anonymity vs assholes) I would rather have to put up with the anonymous assholes than have people remain silent for fear of offending someone above them in the future.
Complete agreement. But I think some editing would help your case.
Second, complaints that the users are undermining IT perfect systems by buying devices or installing software. Basic economics tells us that users are investing money and time in these thing because they deliver value. Value that It is not delivering to a demand from their user base.
... and...
Fifth, the wireless access point anecdote highlights appalling sysadmin practices. One point of access into the network and the bad guy was able to destroy critical infrastructure. Way to put all your eggs in one basket. The sysadmin of that network was incompetent, negligent, or both. Yes, the user did something stupid. But the real fool was the the person who did not design for defense in depth.
Funny how those two (almost contradictory) statements go together, isn't it?
The users have to be allowed to put whatever they want on the network because it adds value for the user but IT has to make sure that anything added to the network is correctly shielded and monitored. Even though a single weak point is all that the bad guys need to wreck havoc.
Basic economics tells us that users are investing money and time in these thing because they deliver value. Value that It is not delivering to a demand from their user base.
Note how the gp phrased it as "value" instead of "business value". Gaining status by having the latest toy does nothing for the business.
If the new item has so much value FOR THE BUSINESS then the person wanting the new item should have no trouble presenting a business case to upper management to increase IT's budget to support said new item.
As you noted, a $20 wireless router can punch a very expensive hole in a very expensive network.
Where's the business case from the guy adding it? Where's the approval?
This is simply a case of demand everything and refuse to take any responsibility for any failures caused by the user NOT having the knowledge that he thinks he has.
Yes, IT is holding back the end-users and their iPads.
... and...
It's always the end-user's responsibility to safeguard data, whether it's on their iPhone or printed out in their briefcase.
No. There is a HUGE difference between physical documents and electronic files. The end-user cannot be relied upon to know how to make sure all the copies of a document are deleted from their toy-of-the-month. Nor can they be relied upon to perform the necessary actions even if they did know.
IT, by trying to be in control of everything, insists on disempowering users by refusing to allow them to use any such devices.
You have not yet demonstrated that the end-users know how to use such devices within the security standards of their employer.
It's false security. It costs more than the problem you're trying to prevent. Give the user an encrypted container and show them how to use it and tell them that's where all business data goes.
How does it cost more? Without some means of verification, you will be relying upon the users' knowledge. I think it has already been established that the end-users do not have the same level of knowledge as the IT department does.
Slashdot Mirror
I have Abraham Lincoln's skull from when he was a 12 year old boy.
How much are you willing to pay for this one-of a kind collector's item?
I'll also throw in his skull from when he was 21 years old AND when he was 25 years old.
That's THREE skulls that I'm offering for sale. How much are you willing to pay?
You also aren't doing very well on sentence structure, either.
So, those adults know LESS than kids in the 5th grade.
But at one time in the past those adults WERE in the 5th grade.
So, did those many adults undergo some kind of brain trauma and forget the stuff they knew when they were in the 5th grade?
Or are you exhibiting bias?
First off, the 5th grader isn't going to understand the different in income. As long as the engineer and the athlete both bring in enough money for cookies and video games, it's the same to them.
Second, what needs to be taught is that the engineering graduates make (median) $X per year.
While the kids on the various sports teams make (median) $X-y per year.
Sure, there are some that make a LOT more than the engineers but those few are less than 1% of the pool of athletes.
Third, the 5th graders probably don't understand "career" at that point. They'd be as happy learning to be a cowboy as they would be learning engineering. Probably happier.
I hope that they're going to use SOME of that savings to hire a programmer or two to help improve LibreOffice. In Denmark, of course. Might as well keep the work local and focus on local requirements.
The problem with that approach is that the economics of spam are totally slanted in favour of the spammer.
One machine can send out MILLIONS of spam messages per day.
And it only takes a couple of people purchasing something to make it profitable.
Instead, focus on understanding the spam process. I was able to reduce 99%+ of spam at one place I worked using SpamAssassin, clamAV, a Bayesian filter and lots of spam trap email addresses on a smart host.
I'll say that. In order for the people in the Tea Party to have a valid point, they cannot WILLINGLY BENEFIT from the programs they publicly oppose.
You should look at that statement more closely.
So they are not opposed to CERTAIN people benefiting from the government programs.
It's just when the WRONG people benefit that they have a problem.
No. The problem is that they're complaining about CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE using the programs while THEY THEMSELVES benefit from those programs.
They want the BENEFITS (as evidenced by them voluntarily applying for those benefits and using them) but they don't want to pay the taxes if CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE will also get the benefits.
The problem is that there isn't a line item labeled "waste and fraud" in the various budgets for the various departments.
If there was, it would be easy to eliminate it.
As it is, one man's "governmental waste" is another man's "necessary government function".
The people telling the government to reduce oil business regulations ... were the same people complaining that the government did not do enough to prevent the BP oil rig disaster.
Everyone wants less government ... until they need the services provided by the government.
Yep. Mostly because Microsoft has a history of purchasing favourable "findings" from "independent" "research" firms.
Kind of. The process and parameters should always be checked. But the other browsers do not have a history of their parent companies purchasing favourable "findings".
It's called "learning from experience".
There is no reason to forget every past instance when evaluating a new instance. Quite the opposite, in fact.
What is with that at work? Why do people want to tell me about Mafia Wars or their latest WoW raid? Why do they think I have any interest in that at all?
Even Red Dwarf mocked this 20+ years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TxzDY_sEk
Remember, the people in Congress are always up for re-election (unless retiring).
Now if a few groups like The Eagles decide to make this a public issue, then their fans may be persuaded to vote in a different person who is more agreeable to The Eagles' argument.
It's difficult for the various corporate interests to simultaneously claim to be pro-artist-rights with regard to "intellectual property" and also claim that the artist was nothing more than a day-laborer with no rights to the finished product.
Yeah, allow me to repeat myself.
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Yeah.
Someone posing as a pilot might be able to get through the proposed "security" system.
Posing as a pilot and getting control of an airplane ... are you serious?
Talk to anyone who flies regularly. They'll explain the situation to you.
And that's the logical failure of your argument. You hear "pilot" and you think "has hands on the controls".
Meanwhile, a terrorist can impersonate a pilot to get through security (or get licensed by a small airline) and move multiple bombs through security to hand off to other terrorists on other flights.
The TSA introduces 1 weakness into the system and now every single flight is more vulnerable.
Again, no. You'd have to be able to tell who is NOT a terrorist. Not who IS a pilot.
And this system is not able to do that.
Fuck no! Where did you get that idea? This all hinges around the TSA being unable to tell pilots from passengers from terrorists.
The ONLY way it would work is if the TSA could tell (with 100% reliability) who was a pilot and who was a terrorist.
Which is why EVERYONE should have to go through the SAME screening as everyone else. If it works,
This isn't about stopping anyone from going through security.
This is about checking EVERYONE'S luggage with the same process.
You can get through security with a fake boarding pass. It's been done. Look on Google for people who have done it.
But under this new plan, they COULD get a bomb through. They could get multiple bombs through. And they could hand those bombs to terrorists flying on other airplanes. So ONE guy getting through security reduces the security of MULTIPLE flights.
No. It show a complete failure to understand basic security.
And you left one thing off.
And the consequences of FAILING with a false positive (terrorist mistaken for authorized pilot).
I think the problem here is the same as with the TSA in general.
People hear "pilot" and they think "person flying the plane".
Which assumes 100% verification of every pilot, every time, at every location. Including 100% verification of NON-pilots.
Once you get past that assumption, the flaws are obvious.
Hi! I'm Captain Jack! You probably didn't know that I was scheduled to fly this airplane what with you and the co-pilot being employed by the airline. But trust me. See my uniform? Obviously I'm a pilot and this is a plane and so forth. So don't bother calling security that there's some weird guy in a pilot's uniform trying to talk you out of the cockpit. Just give me the controls and I'll take over. You can have yourself a nice relaxing day off while I take the flight that you thought you were scheduled to fly.
Impersonating a pilot to get past TSA security is one thing. ... yeah, that's something else.
Convincing the real pilot to let you fly the plane
Why would it be "a million times more useful"?
Why NOT run the pilots and crew through the regular security? Including checking their bags?
Because once you create a group where you do NOT check their luggage, you create an opening for terrorists to move large amounts of weapons past security.
So, 20 terrorists want to take down 20 planes.
1 terrorist spends the time to get listed as a pilot for some minor airline.
Then that 1 terrorist moves 100 pounds of explosives (and detonators) through security without being checked.
The other 20 terrorists buy tickets and travel without weapons.
Once past security, the "pilot" hands the bombs off to the 20 terrorists.
And all that would have been avoided if the pilots had to go through the same screening as everyone else.
The issue is whether a terrorist can impersonate a pilot long enough to bypass the screening process.
Once you introduce multiple avenues for clearance, you introduce vulnerabilities.
Good point. But let's go back 100 years to a time before email. If you ran that same story in a NEWSPAPER and 1,000 people sent LETTERS to Congress, would that be an attack on Congress?
Sticking with the 100 years ago scenario ... suppose the Post Office gave those 1,000 letters to Congress to one 60 year old mailman to deliver. And the weight was so much that he fell down and broke a leg.
Are YOU guilty of assault and battery because he broke his leg carrying the letters that your newspaper story led people to write?
Would the same amount of physical mail result in any legal actions against the union?
No? Then the judge is an idiot.
From that Twitter post:
No. Profiling is done AFTER a crime has been committed. And it is based upon the evidence found at the crime scene.
And it gives you a location and a time to match the people matching the profile against.
She is wrong because you would end up with far more false positives when you try to profile BEFORE a crime is committed.
Not to mention that the real terrorists would be able to guess what the profile was and recruit people who did not match it.
And your phrasing of that is the problem. You're conflating "terrorists" and "Muslims". Nice. So all that a terrorist would have to do to get through your profile would be to claim to be Christian.
More correctly ... SOME improvised explosive devices have home-made electronics as components.
Others, such as the shoe bomber's and captain underpants', do not.
Home-made electronics do NOT look like IEDs.
Some IEDs contain home-made electronics.
The difference is important when you compare the number of times home-made electronics have been mistaken for IEDs versus the number of IEDs that have been caught being smuggled into airports in the USofA.
Since it seems to be coming down to a binary choice (anonymity vs assholes) I would rather have to put up with the anonymous assholes than have people remain silent for fear of offending someone above them in the future.
Complete agreement. But I think some editing would help your case.
... and ...
Funny how those two (almost contradictory) statements go together, isn't it?
The users have to be allowed to put whatever they want on the network because it adds value for the user but IT has to make sure that anything added to the network is correctly shielded and monitored. Even though a single weak point is all that the bad guys need to wreck havoc.
Note how the gp phrased it as "value" instead of "business value". Gaining status by having the latest toy does nothing for the business.
If the new item has so much value FOR THE BUSINESS then the person wanting the new item should have no trouble presenting a business case to upper management to increase IT's budget to support said new item.
As you noted, a $20 wireless router can punch a very expensive hole in a very expensive network.
Where's the business case from the guy adding it? Where's the approval?
This is simply a case of demand everything and refuse to take any responsibility for any failures caused by the user NOT having the knowledge that he thinks he has.
No. There is a HUGE difference between physical documents and electronic files. The end-user cannot be relied upon to know how to make sure all the copies of a document are deleted from their toy-of-the-month. Nor can they be relied upon to perform the necessary actions even if they did know.
You have not yet demonstrated that the end-users know how to use such devices within the security standards of their employer.
How does it cost more?
Without some means of verification, you will be relying upon the users' knowledge. I think it has already been established that the end-users do not have the same level of knowledge as the IT department does.