"I don't think that they have any idea how this oil is predicted to move through the marshes and the nearshore zone," said Luettich.
I understand that "nearshore" zones may be hard to predict: I wonder if that map (see white line) shows how close to shore they can predict...
Also this may be used as a forecast model, but to me it seems like measuring and predicting a hurricane while ignoring storm surge...but I am not going to be critical with little knowledge on what data was available to the programmers.
Well most ignorant investors, well invest in talent. But honestly I think this is very intuitive... I have an MBA and decided that was not for me. (now a math / programming, but judge all you want idc) you nailed the business perspective my friend and well, I will still invest. But in the same sense, because I must be the devil's advocate: you can never know the market. Name a better place? Where else will you find talent on demand, I'm sure there is a place, but add infrastructure into the equation. Hey help me fellow slashers of info, is there really a better place for this to be situated, we need talent and little infrastructure investment? (the "we" is used loosely) I am not be arbitrary here, just asking for where would be better?
In order to stop wasting time : Premise1: This discussion is wasting time by talking about wasting time. Premise2: In order to stop wasting time one should discuss ways to stop wasting time. Conclusion: Since we are wasting time, and we need to stop wasting time, by Premise2, lets waste more time talking about how not to waste this time. Since we are talking about wasting more time, this conversation is wasting time. (Premise1) We want to waste less time, so see In order to stop wasting time.
--
When you are finished parsing that argument, we will continue. Ah never-mind, I'm not in a recursive argument mood anyway:)
Well it seems I skewed the statistic quite a bit..
Now the real question is, how many more hours will it consume talking about how many hours it consumed?
Begs the question doesn't it?
Finger-pointing should be reserved to politics while those not necessary to blame mitigate and/or find a solution to the problem.
Blame the user. You want privacy? Don't use our search engine/photo software/email application/maps. That's our data now, thank you very much. Oh, you don't want your private chats exposed to the world? Sorry, you never told us that."
I am all for the world deserves more privacy, privacy laws should exist, etc..."trust" me! But jokes aside, there will always be entities that operate outside what we consider the ideal privacy as long as they are allowed to do so. The problem is not that of each company's policy: since when did we decide that each respective business should and would always hold itself to a higher standard?
In the corporate world these days, one of the common phrases to encompass a moral code is: "if you wouldn't want your mother reading it on the front page of the newspaper, you probably should not be doing it." That is all fine and dandy as they say for a corporate environment and ethics, but this does not necessarily apply to my personal browsing. The problem therefore, as I argue, is that of a conflict of interests:
---We want transparency with privacy. Security and privacy in a corporate viewpoint need to be high. Certified public accountants are held liable for transactions, and audits happen...very often. If the security system itself does not allow tracing of fraud, or even a way to raise a "red flag" of sorts, well then the security system is flawed in the eyes of the auditor.
---We want privacy on personal matters. This fact alone can contradict not in implementation or even feasibility, but perhaps in theory - which is enough to cause problems. As a hypothetical CEO of a corporation, I do not have much understanding of personal privacy of internet actions...I have to deal with lawyers (yes those people...), auditors, and general liability. When I am told that I need to up user privacy and not record any data, etc... this may go against what I fundamentally see my company doing!
I mean to say here that there is a bridge of "thought" between privacy and liability...even though this should not apply to the end user: us.
We assume that big companies are playing fast and loose with our personal information and that there's little we can do about it.
On another front, many Americans are complacent...we know this to be a fact! I don't care about Republican this, Democrat that, Ron Paul, whatever...the world will always have ignorant individuals. Individuals will except a sacrifice of privacy and that overused term liberty in exchange for a bit of "piece-of-mind", and in many cases they just don't care.
A quick search of recent news on the privacy front reveals that just about all of it is bad.
Lastly, I'd like to say, outside of the fact that bad news means more audience, that this all is bad philosophy might not be what is needed. Sure the breaches on my personal privacy and what I like to coin as my "personal liberty" are disturbing...but in a general sense unless the actual source of the problem, a complete lack of laws protecting our privacy, is brought to light, I do not expect any real change.
I agree with this posting in the fact I want privacy and I have little patience...but I just wanted to play the devil's advocate on Slashdot for a bit...
My question to you all: How can we balance security and corporate liability today? && How could the general public be informed the "real" issues, not just the latest privacy breach?
It is far more complicated than a simple who is allowed and who isn't.
Looking simply at network structure, there is much data that cannot be accessed out of what we call a "closed network" system. Furthermore the Military, correct me anyone if I am wrong, uses a security clearance levels for access to both hardware and internal network resources. "Cyberattacks", as they may be referred to, come in the form of systems that may have been compromised from the inside, or perhaps a denial of service attacks that prevented a web domain from functioning and providing service to its normal users.
If they were in an Internet 2.0 that was impossible to get on from China, wouldn't that mean most hacks would stop?
Although, at first, a person with little knowledge could say lets block this IP Block, or range of IP addresses associated with what we will call "China Intelligence" to prevent an attack, but the internet is very tricky here... There are various ways around this: take for example a proxy. This tool allows the "China Intelligence" to pretend or be viewed as a different IP address, and bypass this problem completely, but this is just a simple view. No matter how many authentication levels and blocked IP addresses... no network system can be engineered to be perfectly safe when it is connected to the internet. Through either faking who they may pretend to be, or even finding some exploit to install a virus to steal the information, there will always be cases of "Cyberattacks". I hope I did not ramble too much to answer your question, and sadly what we coin as "Internet 2.0", in the most broadest of sense, is that of a connected internet, not one that is made mutually exclusive to one party or entity, the internet, as I would want to see it continue to progress towards, would be one where privacy is respected, and information remains free and easily obtainable. Lastly, I am sure there are some awesome network specialists here who would be happy to answer any other specific questions or provide better analogies to your question...
Jacek Jezierski, a local bishop who encouraged the search for Copernicus, said that he considers Copernicus' burial as part of the church's broader embrace of science as being compatible with Biblical belief.
I wonder if it is not the end user buying these things, but the custom installers who give their clueless customers with big bank accounts a final bill that is not itemized. [Comment on CNET article]
Salesman: "Sir you wouldn't want the electrons to feel unwanted, play a polka and you'll get the blues instead..."
And the federal government regulates these...was amusing though to see the network news channels freak out a bit. On another note, the next time LA gets a rolling blackout due to an inadequate power grid, every LA resident will still be thinking "What if? Ah no way, they couldn't have...":)
They even tried making MS IE free but that wasn't working very well so they had to tie it to the OS, spread its bits all over the OS to fight orders to keep it separate, and even buy up Netscape contracts and pay companies for every unit shipped. And then they shipped a browser with many tied directly to proprietary features of only their platform.
What do you mean, if the web-page is not IE6 approved, its obviously just clogging the tubes!
* They're usually talking louder than everyone else. * They're not looking where they're driving. * They're constantly shouting "WHAT DID YOU SAY?" * They're unable to change lanes because they're distracted by another conversation
I will tell you this is true for people hard of hearing or people that have trouble aligning the speaker on the cellphone with their ear...take for example my father. He is a bit hard of hearing and cannot operate a cellphone very well - he speaks very loud.
I mean if you cannot hear them well, they certainly cannot hear you well either logically!
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't think that they have any idea how this oil is predicted to move through the marshes and the nearshore zone," said Luettich.
I understand that "nearshore" zones may be hard to predict: I wonder if that map (see white line) shows how close to shore they can predict...
Also this may be used as a forecast model, but to me it seems like measuring and predicting a hurricane while ignoring storm surge...but I am not going to be critical with little knowledge on what data was available to the programmers.
Don't forget
Harry Potter collector cards!
being**
"Zero company loyalty"
Well most ignorant investors, well invest in talent. But honestly I think this is very intuitive... I have an MBA and decided that was not for me. (now a math / programming, but judge all you want idc) you nailed the business perspective my friend and well, I will still invest. But in the same sense, because I must be the devil's advocate: you can never know the market. Name a better place? Where else will you find talent on demand, I'm sure there is a place, but add infrastructure into the equation. Hey help me fellow slashers of info, is there really a better place for this to be situated, we need talent and little infrastructure investment? (the "we" is used loosely) I am not be arbitrary here, just asking for where would be better?
Just a humble opinion, don't judge...
Or we Photoshop them in and then claim that they Photoshopped them out. Either one is entertaining to me...
In order to stop wasting time : :)
Premise1: This discussion is wasting time by talking about wasting time.
Premise2: In order to stop wasting time one should discuss ways to stop wasting time.
Conclusion: Since we are wasting time, and we need to stop wasting time, by Premise2, lets waste more time talking about how not to waste this time. Since we are talking about wasting more time, this conversation is wasting time. (Premise1) We want to waste less time, so see In order to stop wasting time.
--
When you are finished parsing that argument, we will continue. Ah never-mind, I'm not in a recursive argument mood anyway
Well it seems I skewed the statistic quite a bit..
Now the real question is, how many more hours will it consume talking about how many hours it consumed?
Begs the question doesn't it?
Blame the user. You want privacy? Don't use our search engine/photo software/email application/maps. That's our data now, thank you very much. Oh, you don't want your private chats exposed to the world? Sorry, you never told us that."
I am all for the world deserves more privacy, privacy laws should exist, etc..."trust" me! But jokes aside, there will always be entities that operate outside what we consider the ideal privacy as long as they are allowed to do so. The problem is not that of each company's policy: since when did we decide that each respective business should and would always hold itself to a higher standard?
In the corporate world these days, one of the common phrases to encompass a moral code is: "if you wouldn't want your mother reading it on the front page of the newspaper, you probably should not be doing it." That is all fine and dandy as they say for a corporate environment and ethics, but this does not necessarily apply to my personal browsing. The problem therefore, as I argue, is that of a conflict of interests:
---We want transparency with privacy. Security and privacy in a corporate viewpoint need to be high. Certified public accountants are held liable for transactions, and audits happen...very often. If the security system itself does not allow tracing of fraud, or even a way to raise a "red flag" of sorts, well then the security system is flawed in the eyes of the auditor.
---We want privacy on personal matters. This fact alone can contradict not in implementation or even feasibility, but perhaps in theory - which is enough to cause problems. As a hypothetical CEO of a corporation, I do not have much understanding of personal privacy of internet actions...I have to deal with lawyers (yes those people...), auditors, and general liability. When I am told that I need to up user privacy and not record any data, etc... this may go against what I fundamentally see my company doing!
I mean to say here that there is a bridge of "thought" between privacy and liability...even though this should not apply to the end user: us.
We assume that big companies are playing fast and loose with our personal information and that there's little we can do about it.
On another front, many Americans are complacent...we know this to be a fact! I don't care about Republican this, Democrat that, Ron Paul, whatever...the world will always have ignorant individuals. Individuals will except a sacrifice of privacy and that overused term liberty in exchange for a bit of "piece-of-mind", and in many cases they just don't care.
A quick search of recent news on the privacy front reveals that just about all of it is bad.
Lastly, I'd like to say, outside of the fact that bad news means more audience, that this all is bad philosophy might not be what is needed. Sure the breaches on my personal privacy and what I like to coin as my "personal liberty" are disturbing...but in a general sense unless the actual source of the problem, a complete lack of laws protecting our privacy, is brought to light, I do not expect any real change.
I agree with this posting in the fact I want privacy and I have little patience...but I just wanted to play the devil's advocate on Slashdot for a bit...
My question to you all: How can we balance security and corporate liability today? && How could the general public be informed the "real" issues, not just the latest privacy breach?
It is far more complicated than a simple who is allowed and who isn't.
Looking simply at network structure, there is much data that cannot be accessed out of what we call a "closed network" system. Furthermore the Military, correct me anyone if I am wrong, uses a security clearance levels for access to both hardware and internal network resources. "Cyberattacks", as they may be referred to, come in the form of systems that may have been compromised from the inside, or perhaps a denial of service attacks that prevented a web domain from functioning and providing service to its normal users.
If they were in an Internet 2.0 that was impossible to get on from China, wouldn't that mean most hacks would stop?
Although, at first, a person with little knowledge could say lets block this IP Block, or range of IP addresses associated with what we will call "China Intelligence" to prevent an attack, but the internet is very tricky here... There are various ways around this: take for example a proxy. This tool allows the "China Intelligence" to pretend or be viewed as a different IP address, and bypass this problem completely, but this is just a simple view. No matter how many authentication levels and blocked IP addresses... no network system can be engineered to be perfectly safe when it is connected to the internet. Through either faking who they may pretend to be, or even finding some exploit to install a virus to steal the information, there will always be cases of "Cyberattacks". I hope I did not ramble too much to answer your question, and sadly what we coin as "Internet 2.0", in the most broadest of sense, is that of a connected internet, not one that is made mutually exclusive to one party or entity, the internet, as I would want to see it continue to progress towards, would be one where privacy is respected, and information remains free and easily obtainable. Lastly, I am sure there are some awesome network specialists here who would be happy to answer any other specific questions or provide better analogies to your question...
Jacek Jezierski, a local bishop who encouraged the search for Copernicus, said that he considers Copernicus' burial as part of the church's broader embrace of science as being compatible with Biblical belief.
In the end it's just one big format war...
by far the ugliest early development pic
In this case, haha yes engadget does have one ugly photo...
http://twitpic.com/1qezfa/full (this one is a few links in from the twitter link)
Nice Dracker :)
Yes but you would have to brake in order to move through the intersection.
Got this link of their original source with some more pictures: http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?/topic/53552-look-who-flew-the-nest/
Lovely accessed denied... just a snapshot of site:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Oa6IgGHvHHUJ:pandorapress.net/+site:pandorapress.net+pandorapress.net&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
That is Google cache version, not really helpful imo.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/20/gp2x-community-system-dubbed-pandora/
There is your engadget version, they always have nice pretty pictures there.
I wonder if it is not the end user buying these things, but the custom installers who give their clueless customers with big bank accounts a final bill that is not itemized. [Comment on CNET article]
Salesman: "Sir you wouldn't want the electrons to feel unwanted, play a polka and you'll get the blues instead..."
Monster Cable will find someway to exploit this, of course with enough shielding to protect against a nuclear blast and the heat of the sun.
I can see a knockoff coming, see Mininova etc...
BINHunt.org anyone? MDFHunt.org?
Time to register some domains!
Damn, didn't notice you beat me to it when I made my comment earlier. Anyways, awesome... loved that book in 3rd grade.
Well the "Big Friendly Giant" of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BFG
I'll be sure to "FLOSS" after eating my delicious manly steak tyvm.
Seems that DWP co-owns the power plants...
And the federal government regulates these...was amusing though to see the network news channels freak out a bit. On another note, the next time LA gets a rolling blackout due to an inadequate power grid, every LA resident will still be thinking "What if? Ah no way, they couldn't have..." :)
They even tried making MS IE free but that wasn't working very well so they had to tie it to the OS, spread its bits all over the OS to fight orders to keep it separate, and even buy up Netscape contracts and pay companies for every unit shipped. And then they shipped a browser with many tied directly to proprietary features of only their platform.
What do you mean, if the web-page is not IE6 approved, its obviously just clogging the tubes!
* They're usually talking louder than everyone else.
* They're not looking where they're driving.
* They're constantly shouting "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
* They're unable to change lanes because they're distracted by another conversation
There, fixed that for you.
I will tell you this is true for people hard of hearing or people that have trouble aligning the speaker on the cellphone with their ear...take for example my father. He is a bit hard of hearing and cannot operate a cellphone very well - he speaks very loud.
I mean if you cannot hear them well, they certainly cannot hear you well either logically!
Ok haha I can see this:
-
Robot: ---Scanning horizon for lifeforms---
Paperclip: "So it looks like your trying to kill someone..."
(1) Reload a weapon
(2) Point and shoot
(3) Guidelines to killing humans
(4) Identifying a good human to kill
Robot: "No! I just want to find the fuckers! ahhhh"
Microsoft Dominator has just recovered from a serious error; if this error continues, contact your system administrator
-
Trust me, if anything ensures our survival it will be the built in help that causes their demise...