The only whiny bitch here is the spoilt brat who spews random abuse behind AC because no-one will treat his precious Macbook with the respect it doesn't deserve while on a journey half way across the continent and in return for a price well below what it would actually cost to carefully move it from A to B to C to...
The guy is doing the job he is paid to do. You want to pay him to do what you think he should be doing, why not offer him a reasonable wage and working conditions to do it? Or do it yourself, you lazy little man.
You are the guy who shouts abuse at the waiter then gets piss in his soup. Actions have consequences, my spoilt princess. I'm also a privileged cunt and I've never had to do manual labour, though I did once do unpaid helping-out at a cybercafe managed by a friend, possibly the least difficult place in the world in which to wait tables. But it was still tough and I still learnt more respect for the guy at the other end of the transaction.
Sir, I wasn't so fucking insecure about my abilities that I felt the need to mock people for not having the "smart" to excel in higher academic education, in the same way that I don't mock the artist for not being a Fields Medallist or even the wheelchair-bound for not running a marathon. We're born different, we develop different strengths, yet we each have something to contribute: either enjoy the world or go back under your rock and dream about how you'd like your peasants to behave, you snivelling bedroom dictator.
(1) The information to be published is tainted with bullshit to misinform, embarrassing to some but ultimately designed for the benefit of western government;
(2) The previous publication of relatively unimportant military leaks caused a very small proportion of people to actually care, and no damage to plans - wouldn't it be interesting to find out how people react to trivial diplomatic leaks containing information anyone relevant already knows?
(3) The publication will be used as an excuse to implement global legislation and unofficial procedure for more of what you guys call censorship. The UK is planning legislation to demand that Nominet remove domains from its registry (see also: fitwatch) and considering how the IWF can improve its child-protecting powers.
Even right now the leak is being stage-managed. You do not even have to lack of trust in Assange, merely question who manufactured his source.
Please consider these things when you review the documents. Who among us does not like to see a corrupt government exposed, and get a pound of private joy (sweet, cuddly Joy) when it is embarrassed? So we assume that what we hope for is what we are getting, the Pied Piper continuing his work.
...are you going to not Be Evil and continue to index b& sites which offer only an IP address? So, for example, I can type "fitwatch" in the URL bar and Google will automagically redirect me to the site I actually wanted.
If not, I look forward to increased adoption of appropriate browser extensions.
Also, Nominet suck more than Verizon. At least the latter is unashamedly about profit and obeisance; Blighty's has the cheek to pretend that acts in your best interests. And notice that the "incorrect registration information" excuse has been used to censor on police request, the standard selective enforcement through bureaucratic detail technique of any country not ruled by law.
You are simply wrong here. [...] And the context always has an expectation of some sort of corrective action
I hope the above effectively summarises your mistake: you believe that it is the audit process which effects corrective action, while the audit process is merely there to report on the initial state of affairs and then possibly the response to the report. I've tried to explain this in two different ways already, so I think you're being deliberately childishly stubborn because you don't want to accept responsibility or perhaps accept that you have learned something.
It is the parent process, as it were - probably some process of good accounting - which may have experienced a failure. But the audit process worked.
And if a majority of the people don't care about the audit, then that's a fail right there, as you note.
Assuming that excellent accounting is even an aim. It may be that the representatives through the people want to make sure that the accounts are not insanely wrong, but everyone's life is good enough that they will tolerate a degree of corruption and bad accounting.
technocracy is immune to all but an aggressive assault by the parliament which either fires people or cuts funding.
It's rather revealing that you consider simply firing the incompetent/corrupt or denying them funds to be an "aggressive assault". You are also ignoring the input of democratically elected national governments.
And a number of other people are good enough that they can find problems merely by looking for them!
Again, you are missing the point. It is not that problems are not found, it is that no-one cares about the problems. Some people do not even regard the issues as problems: not just the corrupt who benefit directly, but the people who are satisfied enough with the way they are ruled that they are happy to let their leaders get away with a level of personal gain. This applies to the relationship between Western voters and their governments in general.
I'm not playing the "definition game". I'm just pointing out that you are wrong here. [...] Eh, the EU seems to be a technocracy with only a modest amount of democratic input.
Oh, I see. You're just trying to get away with putting the blame on the wrong people for the EU's problems. In truth the audit process was successful but those requesting the audit did not consider it necessary to follow the recommendations in the report: the people have not used their EU votes to effect change in EU Parliament, nor have they put pressure on their national governments. But it is so much easier to wave it off as a "process failure" by those dictatorial technocrats.
As I pointed out, the auditing process is not just the audit, it is also how the organization responds to the audit.
You're acting like a child. An "auditing process" in its most inclusive sense (though it is not so presented in the literature for the reasons described, I'm going to throw you a bone to illustrate how you are making incorrect assumptions from it) could be summarised: plan, fieldwork, report, respond, implement, followup. But you wrongly believe "respond" means "do everything in the report says"; it simply means that management request a particular response which they consider appropriate, armed with the information in the report. The audit process is still successfully completed even if "response" is "do nothing" and "implement" is "nothing done" - providing the report in "follow-up" asserts that none of the recommendations were followed.
IOW, auditors are independent and the organisation requesting audit has the privilege of deciding that it is not appropriate to follow explicit or implied advice in the report. Otherwise the value of auditing would be greatly diminished.
Regardless, you are surely not so obtuse as to think it is a failure of auditors if the response is not what you liked. Since the original discussion was the value of the professional audit vs some stupid Web 2.0 crowd-audit, it is a shame that you were not cognitively able to recognise the argument in context.
No, don't be the stubborn geek mired in a definition game.
While the auditing process may include a determination of how well an organisation improved on the criticisms of previous audits, it ends at the report. Just because Computer Engineering 101 likes to create neat little closed loops to demonstrate a feedback cycle (evaluate, improve, evaluate, improve...) it doesn't mean it is appropriate to include "improve" in every process diagram.
Why? Because there is separation of privilege/responsibility and the improvement is often part of a parent process, if you like to look at it that way. The job of the auditor is emphatically not to play with the answers, just to report on them. He is not failing when someone doesn't act on his results the way you'd want him to (assuming they make sense).
In the specific case of the EU we have the people failing to care. Depending on how you look at it, that is either a failure or a success of democracy: the people have prioritised and decided that they don't really care about the level of EU wastage/corruption, as perhaps there are greater things to worry about.
1. The structure of the article may suggest a connection between AnonymousLeaker and Mackay, but doesn't actually assert one, knocking its credibility. He remains AnonymousLeaker;
2. Expenses were due for official publication in June 2009 anyway. The slightly early (May) and very media-hyped leak effort could not have been for the reason argued in the article;
3. Like I said, you need to focus on the extent to which the news was covered and the time at which it was covered. The presence of information about anything anywhere is highly overrated: what matters is how many people are effectively driven to care about it.
No, the audit process is fine. It is just that no one with sufficient power wants to do anything about it. Similarly, everyone paying attention knew how MPs would claim excessive expenses, but no major media outlet would make a fuss until the Barclay brothers got fed up with the government pointing the finger at financiers/bankers for all that is wrong in the world.
And the only information which will be sung about as a result of these publications is information which suits special interests of the sufficiently powerful. Other corruptions will remain known about, and ignored. I can only assume that anyone who thinks the Tories' service reduction exercises actually reduce government expenditure was not born before 1990. Irish wake, anyone?
Yeah, there is no value in professional auditors with experience in spotting sophisticated fraudulent activity. This is why no open source distribution has suffered embarrassingly simple flaws present for months to years.
I'd like to start off by looking at the drill down funding to the military-industrial complex, particularly security services. Oh, what's that? This is specifically designed to get people to "discover" wastage where the government wants to make cutbacks, so I won't be able to do that?
There's no need to get into a slanging match just because you misunderstood how to interpret the figures and aren't man enough to apologise.
My argument was that Oxbridge (PPE in particular) is grooming for civil service. You went off on some tangent about the equivalent of only a small proportion of Oxford graduates successfully entering the fast stream programme, completely ignoring that:
(1) Only a very small number of people in the country are wanted each year on the fast stream programme, so the equivalent of 2.5% of graduates from a single university is a huge amount - and significantly larger than the "1 of 100" figure you experienced one year from one college. But I doubt even your figure because you expressed surprise at the number of candidates, suggesting you know nothing about the civil service fast stream programme and haven't really followed every single one of your compatriots' career paths;
(2) The favouring of Oxford can be seen by comparing the proportion of candidates experiencing success and the total number of successful candidates from Oxford vs other universities. This is a fair comparison becuase Oxford does not have a comparatively huge number of undergraduate students to explain having 15 times the number of successful fast stream candidates vs the average uni (and that's just including universities with at least one applicant).
You embarrass yourself and should probably stop posting.
2003 saw IARU actively recommending Morse test requirement removal. Most nations have followed the recommendations for several years, including UK and US.
If only there was some sort of certificate of competence enabling a rudimentary understanding of propagation and planning accordingly, this problem might be overcome;-).
Not something the community is going to lean on in a few decades.
If you lean on your mobile phone for disaster relief, you are already doing it wrong. I'm not suggesting that hams alone save the day, just that technical knowledge combined with systems requiring less working infrastructure is preferable during a disaster to idiots with sealed boxes. And we are foolish to increasingly rely on systems assuming an infinitely long period of geopolitical and natural stability.
...because unlike the mobile phone network we require a huge infrastructure, high maintenance costs and the careful coordination of government and industry.
Oh dear. I'd hate to guess what subject you achieved an "effortless first" in.
Average pass rate = 3.9% Oxford pass rate = 9.3% - just about tying with Cambridge (9.4%) for first place for any university with a significant number of candidates
Average successful candidates per university, of those listed ~570/100 = 5.7 Number of successful Oxford candidates = 88, in first place above Cambridge at 78
(Observe finally that this isn't "analysis by university of highest degree" but of first degree.)
So what did these carefully groomed Henrys do upon graduating? The majority found work in the city
"For those who can't hack it in the City..." Your group must be atypical because it does not reflect the proportion of civil servants coming from Oxford. I'm not even sure what sample you're using: the whole college? Your circle of friends?
At to my personal qualities, I didn't attend lectures and took an effortless first.
Sure, sure, didn't everyone? You're crossing the line to Internet fantasy, now.
Perhaps the mythical groomers spotted my fundamental laziness.
If you mean headhunters, probably. The institution itself is the major preparation.
Indeed. Also college matters: St Hilda's is no Balliol (in b4...).
But tutors and students, or perhaps those playing one on the Internet, will be quick to dismiss the notion that there is a more than merely meritocratic relationship between studying at Oxford and reaching leadership positions in politics or civil service. Feigned innocence is the cornerstone of the hypocrisy of the British establishment.
If you spent more than a week in Oxford and didn't notice how people are groomed and plucked for civil service then you were probably either not doing a relevant degree or were considered mediocre (in terms of both talent and personal connection). Sorry.
But I think you weren't even paying attention from the first pep talk at an open day. Or haven't noticed how much tutoring/advice is about knowing just the right thing at the right time, while lesser universities (ironically?) try for a broader approach. The institution is about making it easy for you to take particular traditional paths. Disagree?
Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service will understand that, unlike even the United States in an increasingly dwindling number of areas, there is no real sense of government serving the people. The government exists to manage the unwashed masses and knows what is good for you, even while every individual understands that the government is really serving itself. This notion of nanny leadership is even woven into the undergraduate experience at Oxford, where the nation's managers are bred (and probably Cambridge too): if you have any sense of egalitarianism, it is repulsive but difficult to ignore.
Except he can't release evidence because that would get the non-authors in trouble.
So we can't reasonably falsify his statement, as he is aware.
I get the feeling this man is a scientist and a troll, and he intentionally indicated that he was not writing science/mathematics/engineering papers to mock the other disciplines as bullshit.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, why are we prepared to take it on trust that this man who claims to make his life from cheeters isn't himself cheating the system by exaggerating the extent of his abilities and achievements?
If it is easy to write an undergraduate nonscientific essay, it is even easier to fake correspondence.
Slashdot Mirror
The only whiny bitch here is the spoilt brat who spews random abuse behind AC because no-one will treat his precious Macbook with the respect it doesn't deserve while on a journey half way across the continent and in return for a price well below what it would actually cost to carefully move it from A to B to C to...
The guy is doing the job he is paid to do. You want to pay him to do what you think he should be doing, why not offer him a reasonable wage and working conditions to do it? Or do it yourself, you lazy little man.
You are the guy who shouts abuse at the waiter then gets piss in his soup. Actions have consequences, my spoilt princess. I'm also a privileged cunt and I've never had to do manual labour, though I did once do unpaid helping-out at a cybercafe managed by a friend, possibly the least difficult place in the world in which to wait tables. But it was still tough and I still learnt more respect for the guy at the other end of the transaction.
Sir, I wasn't so fucking insecure about my abilities that I felt the need to mock people for not having the "smart" to excel in higher academic education, in the same way that I don't mock the artist for not being a Fields Medallist or even the wheelchair-bound for not running a marathon. We're born different, we develop different strengths, yet we each have something to contribute: either enjoy the world or go back under your rock and dream about how you'd like your peasants to behave, you snivelling bedroom dictator.
(1) The information to be published is tainted with bullshit to misinform, embarrassing to some but ultimately designed for the benefit of western government;
(2) The previous publication of relatively unimportant military leaks caused a very small proportion of people to actually care, and no damage to plans - wouldn't it be interesting to find out how people react to trivial diplomatic leaks containing information anyone relevant already knows?
(3) The publication will be used as an excuse to implement global legislation and unofficial procedure for more of what you guys call censorship. The UK is planning legislation to demand that Nominet remove domains from its registry (see also: fitwatch) and considering how the IWF can improve its child-protecting powers.
Even right now the leak is being stage-managed. You do not even have to lack of trust in Assange, merely question who manufactured his source.
Please consider these things when you review the documents. Who among us does not like to see a corrupt government exposed, and get a pound of private joy (sweet, cuddly Joy) when it is embarrassed? So we assume that what we hope for is what we are getting, the Pied Piper continuing his work.
...are you going to not Be Evil and continue to index b& sites which offer only an IP address? So, for example, I can type "fitwatch" in the URL bar and Google will automagically redirect me to the site I actually wanted.
If not, I look forward to increased adoption of appropriate browser extensions.
Also, Nominet suck more than Verizon. At least the latter is unashamedly about profit and obeisance; Blighty's has the cheek to pretend that acts in your best interests. And notice that the "incorrect registration information" excuse has been used to censor on police request, the standard selective enforcement through bureaucratic detail technique of any country not ruled by law.
NIGGERS
Forgot to post AC?
CUNTS
Who are these guys, really?
You are simply wrong here. [...] And the context always has an expectation of some sort of corrective action
I hope the above effectively summarises your mistake: you believe that it is the audit process which effects corrective action, while the audit process is merely there to report on the initial state of affairs and then possibly the response to the report. I've tried to explain this in two different ways already, so I think you're being deliberately childishly stubborn because you don't want to accept responsibility or perhaps accept that you have learned something.
It is the parent process, as it were - probably some process of good accounting - which may have experienced a failure. But the audit process worked.
And if a majority of the people don't care about the audit, then that's a fail right there, as you note.
Assuming that excellent accounting is even an aim. It may be that the representatives through the people want to make sure that the accounts are not insanely wrong, but everyone's life is good enough that they will tolerate a degree of corruption and bad accounting.
technocracy is immune to all but an aggressive assault by the parliament which either fires people or cuts funding.
It's rather revealing that you consider simply firing the incompetent/corrupt or denying them funds to be an "aggressive assault". You are also ignoring the input of democratically elected national governments.
And a number of other people are good enough that they can find problems merely by looking for them!
Again, you are missing the point. It is not that problems are not found, it is that no-one cares about the problems. Some people do not even regard the issues as problems: not just the corrupt who benefit directly, but the people who are satisfied enough with the way they are ruled that they are happy to let their leaders get away with a level of personal gain. This applies to the relationship between Western voters and their governments in general.
I'm not playing the "definition game". I'm just pointing out that you are wrong here. [...] Eh, the EU seems to be a technocracy with only a modest amount of democratic input.
Oh, I see. You're just trying to get away with putting the blame on the wrong people for the EU's problems. In truth the audit process was successful but those requesting the audit did not consider it necessary to follow the recommendations in the report: the people have not used their EU votes to effect change in EU Parliament, nor have they put pressure on their national governments. But it is so much easier to wave it off as a "process failure" by those dictatorial technocrats.
As I pointed out, the auditing process is not just the audit, it is also how the organization responds to the audit.
You're acting like a child. An "auditing process" in its most inclusive sense (though it is not so presented in the literature for the reasons described, I'm going to throw you a bone to illustrate how you are making incorrect assumptions from it) could be summarised: plan, fieldwork, report, respond, implement, followup. But you wrongly believe "respond" means "do everything in the report says"; it simply means that management request a particular response which they consider appropriate, armed with the information in the report. The audit process is still successfully completed even if "response" is "do nothing" and "implement" is "nothing done" - providing the report in "follow-up" asserts that none of the recommendations were followed.
IOW, auditors are independent and the organisation requesting audit has the privilege of deciding that it is not appropriate to follow explicit or implied advice in the report. Otherwise the value of auditing would be greatly diminished.
Regardless, you are surely not so obtuse as to think it is a failure of auditors if the response is not what you liked. Since the original discussion was the value of the professional audit vs some stupid Web 2.0 crowd-audit, it is a shame that you were not cognitively able to recognise the argument in context.
No, don't be the stubborn geek mired in a definition game.
While the auditing process may include a determination of how well an organisation improved on the criticisms of previous audits, it ends at the report. Just because Computer Engineering 101 likes to create neat little closed loops to demonstrate a feedback cycle (evaluate, improve, evaluate, improve...) it doesn't mean it is appropriate to include "improve" in every process diagram.
Why? Because there is separation of privilege/responsibility and the improvement is often part of a parent process, if you like to look at it that way. The job of the auditor is emphatically not to play with the answers, just to report on them. He is not failing when someone doesn't act on his results the way you'd want him to (assuming they make sense).
In the specific case of the EU we have the people failing to care. Depending on how you look at it, that is either a failure or a success of democracy: the people have prioritised and decided that they don't really care about the level of EU wastage/corruption, as perhaps there are greater things to worry about.
AFK, goodnight.
Sigh, welcome to the media.
1. The structure of the article may suggest a connection between AnonymousLeaker and Mackay, but doesn't actually assert one, knocking its credibility. He remains AnonymousLeaker;
2. Expenses were due for official publication in June 2009 anyway. The slightly early (May) and very media-hyped leak effort could not have been for the reason argued in the article;
3. Like I said, you need to focus on the extent to which the news was covered and the time at which it was covered. The presence of information about anything anywhere is highly overrated: what matters is how many people are effectively driven to care about it.
No, the audit process is fine. It is just that no one with sufficient power wants to do anything about it. Similarly, everyone paying attention knew how MPs would claim excessive expenses, but no major media outlet would make a fuss until the Barclay brothers got fed up with the government pointing the finger at financiers/bankers for all that is wrong in the world.
And the only information which will be sung about as a result of these publications is information which suits special interests of the sufficiently powerful. Other corruptions will remain known about, and ignored. I can only assume that anyone who thinks the Tories' service reduction exercises actually reduce government expenditure was not born before 1990. Irish wake, anyone?
Yeah, there is no value in professional auditors with experience in spotting sophisticated fraudulent activity. This is why no open source distribution has suffered embarrassingly simple flaws present for months to years.
I'd like to start off by looking at the drill down funding to the military-industrial complex, particularly security services. Oh, what's that? This is specifically designed to get people to "discover" wastage where the government wants to make cutbacks, so I won't be able to do that?
There's no need to get into a slanging match just because you misunderstood how to interpret the figures and aren't man enough to apologise.
My argument was that Oxbridge (PPE in particular) is grooming for civil service. You went off on some tangent about the equivalent of only a small proportion of Oxford graduates successfully entering the fast stream programme, completely ignoring that:
(1) Only a very small number of people in the country are wanted each year on the fast stream programme, so the equivalent of 2.5% of graduates from a single university is a huge amount - and significantly larger than the "1 of 100" figure you experienced one year from one college. But I doubt even your figure because you expressed surprise at the number of candidates, suggesting you know nothing about the civil service fast stream programme and haven't really followed every single one of your compatriots' career paths;
(2) The favouring of Oxford can be seen by comparing the proportion of candidates experiencing success and the total number of successful candidates from Oxford vs other universities. This is a fair comparison becuase Oxford does not have a comparatively huge number of undergraduate students to explain having 15 times the number of successful fast stream candidates vs the average uni (and that's just including universities with at least one applicant).
You embarrass yourself and should probably stop posting.
2003 saw IARU actively recommending Morse test requirement removal. Most nations have followed the recommendations for several years, including UK and US.
Two one-line attacks on hams in the thread? Elmers aren't like priests, there's no need to be afraid... :-)
not evenly distributed
If only there was some sort of certificate of competence enabling a rudimentary understanding of propagation and planning accordingly, this problem might be overcome ;-).
nor is it growing in population.
The trouble is that amateur radio has bad PR, so people think that even when it is completely false.
Not something the community is going to lean on in a few decades.
If you lean on your mobile phone for disaster relief, you are already doing it wrong. I'm not suggesting that hams alone save the day, just that technical knowledge combined with systems requiring less working infrastructure is preferable during a disaster to idiots with sealed boxes. And we are foolish to increasingly rely on systems assuming an infinitely long period of geopolitical and natural stability.
...because unlike the mobile phone network we require a huge infrastructure, high maintenance costs and the careful coordination of government and industry.
oh, wait...
Oh dear. I'd hate to guess what subject you achieved an "effortless first" in.
Average pass rate = 3.9%
Oxford pass rate = 9.3% - just about tying with Cambridge (9.4%) for first place for any university with a significant number of candidates
Average successful candidates per university, of those listed ~570/100 = 5.7
Number of successful Oxford candidates = 88, in first place above Cambridge at 78
(Observe finally that this isn't "analysis by university of highest degree" but of first degree.)
So what did these carefully groomed Henrys do upon graduating? The majority found work in the city
"For those who can't hack it in the City..." Your group must be atypical because it does not reflect the proportion of civil servants coming from Oxford. I'm not even sure what sample you're using: the whole college? Your circle of friends?
At to my personal qualities, I didn't attend lectures and took an effortless first.
Sure, sure, didn't everyone? You're crossing the line to Internet fantasy, now.
Perhaps the mythical groomers spotted my fundamental laziness.
If you mean headhunters, probably. The institution itself is the major preparation.
Indeed. Also college matters: St Hilda's is no Balliol (in b4...).
But tutors and students, or perhaps those playing one on the Internet, will be quick to dismiss the notion that there is a more than merely meritocratic relationship between studying at Oxford and reaching leadership positions in politics or civil service. Feigned innocence is the cornerstone of the hypocrisy of the British establishment.
If you spent more than a week in Oxford and didn't notice how people are groomed and plucked for civil service then you were probably either not doing a relevant degree or were considered mediocre (in terms of both talent and personal connection). Sorry.
But I think you weren't even paying attention from the first pep talk at an open day. Or haven't noticed how much tutoring/advice is about knowing just the right thing at the right time, while lesser universities (ironically?) try for a broader approach. The institution is about making it easy for you to take particular traditional paths. Disagree?
Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service will understand that, unlike even the United States in an increasingly dwindling number of areas, there is no real sense of government serving the people. The government exists to manage the unwashed masses and knows what is good for you, even while every individual understands that the government is really serving itself. This notion of nanny leadership is even woven into the undergraduate experience at Oxford, where the nation's managers are bred (and probably Cambridge too): if you have any sense of egalitarianism, it is repulsive but difficult to ignore.
Which, of course, won't be plagiarised...
Except he can't release evidence because that would get the non-authors in trouble.
So we can't reasonably falsify his statement, as he is aware.
I get the feeling this man is a scientist and a troll, and he intentionally indicated that he was not writing science/mathematics/engineering papers to mock the other disciplines as bullshit.
8/10 very good effort.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, why are we prepared to take it on trust that this man who claims to make his life from cheeters isn't himself cheating the system by exaggerating the extent of his abilities and achievements?
If it is easy to write an undergraduate nonscientific essay, it is even easier to fake correspondence.