There's absolutely nothing dishonest about it. If you offer a minimal pay job, you might be happy to find a maximal work employee, but you sure as heck shouldn't *expect* it. If you want to attract a better class of employee, offer a better pay check.
Do you know what an employer is telling you when he pays minimum wage? He's saying I think your job is so worthless that I'd pay you *less*, except that *IT'S AGAINST THE LAW*.
Someone working 3 full-time minimum wage jobs is below the poverty line.
You and I certainly operate with different moral compasses then. I've never hired anyone for minimum wage, but I certainly have had worked for minimum wage. It never crossed my mind to do the minimum required work just because I was getting paid the minimum wage, something to do with the way I was raised. That has served me well as I've climbed up the ladder.
It is not about doing what people (a minimum-wage paying employer for instance) expects of you, but what you expect of yourself as an ethical worker. There is a difference, the nuance is missed to most apparently. You either get it or you don't. Only you know.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think.
Probably. But if they actually are smart and observant, they would observe that the smart thing to do when they are offered minimal pay is to provide minimal effort.
That's not smart. That's dishonest. Nobody forces no one to take a minimal pay job. You take a job, and you accept the pay, you do the job (I talked from experience since I've flipped burgers for minimum wage.) What the hell is wrong with you people that you think your duty to do your job is a function of the hourly wage you so willingly accept?
Smarter? Probably, but this is a matter of being observant. Pick someone bored looking, towards the end of their shift, or go when lines are long. They won't care due to either boredom or stress. The smarter ones will be more vulnerable during the boredom times, the less smart will be more vulnerable during the packed times.
Having worked in pretty boring cashier/salesperson positions, I call bs on it. People do not necessary act on it, but they tend to note discrepancies and alert management. Yes, there is always the emo kid who doesn't give a crap about anything, bored as hell behind the counter. But those are the exception rather than the rule, whether blue collar or white collar (I've been both.)
I think the bigger questions are "WTF was the VP of SAP doing pulling a cheap ass eBay scam like what your average meth head would pull? Is he a kelpto? Is the company in trouble? Is his pay THAT shitty?" These questions sound more relevant to me than how long he was able to pull this shit off.
The VP title means less than you think. At some companies, they hand these out like candy. He could easily have been making under $100K a year.
What "VP" means is really non-sequitur, peanuts as far as logic goes when it comes to asking WTF is a decently paid professional, 6-figure or not, pulling a cheap-ass ghetto scam at a local store.
That was my first thought as well. I am surprised to read so far without anyone questioning this.
Don't be. This is slashdot, not a place where logic or questions about the nature of morals are at the forefront (not without involving logical fallacies and breaking Godwin's law.)
I would expect them to see that the description that comes up isn't what the product is.
No. You expect wrong. Cashiers are expected to scan and charge, not to do verification and validation. Moreover, at least in Florida and other states IIRC (from the time I used to work in Home Depot), the law typically mandates that you, the seller, must charge what is in the label.
In most cases, you cannot go tell a buyer "naaaaah, our bad, we slapped the wrong barcode, and we have to charge you the actual price which is more than what comes off the bar code." You typically have to sell the advertised price, even if it is wrong. Typically that is done with some type of mark down. Then you write that as a loss, and you check your inventory and labels to make sure things are kosher.
So, no, you don't expect your cashiers to be the first line of defense against this kind of fraudulent activity.
Possibly after seeing several incidents, similar mark downs and inventory check-ups, Target must have concluded that all of these were the result of fraudulent activity, and finally caught up with the offender (a filthy-rich VP for SAP's everlasting shame.) And that's how it is supposed to work - not by expecting your cashiers to be the all-aware-sentinels. There are a million practical reasons why you do not want to do that as it typically puts cashiers in a clash course with customers. That is the job for people assigned and trained for that type of work. Cashiers ring products and collect the moolah, that is all.
We're all glad you're so damn special and able to choose the projects/positions that you want to do. Some of us have to take what we can get.
But that is part of the game of being a contractor (I've been a contractor and an employee btw.) It is true that typically we take what we get, but that is also part of the formula. Even in this depressed economy, if you really work your network and your skills, you can have a better chance of looking for something more in tandem with that which you seek.
Working for 8 years as a contractor and stating that he has had no paid vacation? Hello? I would say that 8 years of contracting work should already give a hint that such is the game of working as a contractor (no benefits.) So, the hourly salary and OT should more than compensate for that. And if that is not the case, and this person has been at it for 8 years, c'mon, whose at fault? We are talking 2004, the prime for finding contracting jobs with paid OT. Same since 2011 (yes, things are getting better.)
When you have a job, be it as an employee or contractor, you always, always, always look for ways to stay ahead. If you never do anything to improve your situation, if you only wait till you get the boot to look for options, then you will always get the short stick of the deal, and whose fault would that be?
I get you, sometimes we have to take whatever shit is available, but that is how reality is, if you let it, if you are not proactive with your career choices.
And I'm not saying this to be spiteful. I say it out of experience because I've done the same career blunders myself. I could literally be wipping my ass with rolls of benjamins had I taken charge of my career 8-10 years ago. But I didn't and I commit a series of ultimately costly blunders, waiting for things to happen (instead of looking for ways to make it happen.)
If you are getting shit for 8 years, you know what, time to wake the hell up and make shit happen the way you want. Have a plan, be aggressive and be pro-active. Businesses do not give a shit about you or me, and they will not compensate you as you deserve unless you make sure they do.
In general, yes, the Tea Party has become a Glenn-Beck cock-fest. However, and I quote Massie off the article in question:
As for his political platform, Massie calls himself a “Constitutional conservative,” and he identifies with the Tea Party—at least the members in his home state, whom he says “defy the stereotype in the media.” As he explains, “In northern Kentucky, Tea Parties focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. All of the other stuff around the edges—that maybe some Tea Party folks are for and some are against—don’t get rolled up into the agenda.”
I oppose the general clown-gun-ho-fest trend of the Tea Party, but I will listen to someone who claims affiliation to it if that person can present a coherent argument or agenda that is or appears to be logically constructed, even if it is one that I do not agree with. In particular, I would be willing to listen to a Tea Party member (or one that claims to be) if that person can be a moderating factor.
Okay I'm just going ahead and apologize for not noticing your "summary refers to" bit in your paragraph.
But I think my point still stands - the summary is sufficient for the purposes of summarizing the article.
How can it be sufficient when it refers to two different codes while only mentioning one? Just because you say your point stands does not magically makes it so. The only way to ensure that the summary is in tandem with the article is to read the article. And that defeats the purpose of a summary. If the summary refers to two different coding schemes, but only mentions one by name, then the question follows: is the presence of another coding scheme different from network coding relevant to the model presented by the article? If so, why is the other coding's name ommitted? If it is not relevant, then it is superfluous information that has no place in a summary (but could have a place in the article in place, in a "prior research/history/intro" section, for instance.)
Summaries have very specific purposes, and they need to be written in a very specific way. And as a result, they need proofreading, perhaps more so than the article itself.
The only engineer president of the US I'm aware of is Herbert Hoover. Who was a fairly decent guy, but screwed up big time when the Great Depression hit.
I hear what you are saying, but I'd say, look across the oceans, and not only to China. Look at India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, who is one of the most effective and respected leaders in the world, with a Doctorate in Economics and a Honorary Doctorate in Law. Germany's Angela Merkel who has a Doctorate in Quantum Chemistry. Just look at the Chinese technocrat political class of the 80's and 90's who are responsible for China's growth.
Yes, a STEM background does not preclude one from making mistakes, but a single data point (Hoover in this case) does not make a case. OTH, we can conclude that this country economic, foreign and fiscal policies of the last three decades and its relation to our economic development have really been heading the wrong way. Whether there is causality or co-relation between these policies and political establishment devoid of STEM professionals, that is up for historians, economists and political scientists of the near/distant future to decide.
This is not to say that lawyers and businesspeople are useless or pernicious. All the contrary, we need a diversified political establishment. And we can only reach to that point by increasing the number of STEM professionals into the political arena.
The only problem with that is that he's with the Tea Party, which kind of blows a hole in your argument.
Not necessarily. BTW, I used to be a former Tea Party sympatizer... at the very, very early stage up and until it got to bed with right-wing, homophobe creationist radicals bent on attacking Obama, the person (and to be honest, the whole thing has a racial component to it, which I obviously disaprove of.) I've been attacking the Tea Party in most issues everytime I get a chance ever since (or at least the radical right-wing faction that has been controlling the Tea Party.)
But there are a lot of former Tea Party sympathizers (read former) who wanted a dialog oriented on fiscal conservative views (not on messianic, apocalyptic socio-religious conservative views.)
That is the type of people conservatives and liberals need to reach and talk and have dialogs and compromise. It also goes without saying that there are, as well, independent-minded left-leaning individuals that need to be reached.
So it is important not to draw generalizations and guilt-by-association due to party affiliations. A party affiliation does not mean complete obedience to a particular ideology. It can also mean trying to be a reformer, or subscribing to some basic principles, or being a dissident within that movement.
That "blow a hole in the argument" kind of thing cannot be said just based on party affiliations. You can only say that when you take careful, objective measure of a man ( Mr. Massie in question), his personal views, his record of actions and current political agenda.
I would disagree with Mr. Massie for campaigning for Rand Paul (I don't agree with the later's economic/political agenda.) But that seems one of the many items that need examination.
Also, it seems like this pro-guns/pro-tea-party associations are being blown out of proportion. The summary would make the impression Massin is a gun-totting survavilist living in a survalist underground compound, and that he is a Luddite for chosing a simpler life. Talking about character assasination if you ask me. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is just pure bullshit.
NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule.
Our chance to do what? Become the world's largest economy? Get the world's largest army? Bring indoor plumbing and electricity to 99% of the population? Because we're 'winning' in all those things.
And that is a myopic way of looking at things. Don't look at the marginal things in which we are winning (yes, they are marginal). This is our chance now to fix the things that are broken: our education; our health care costs; our geo-political standing; our anal fixation with shareholder capitalism (instead of relying on stakeholder capitalism); our blue-collar unemployment figures; our lack of opportunities for blue-collar workers; etc, etc, etc.
It is not just the Chinese that are growing. It's everybody in the world. India, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa. Soon others will follow, and thank God to that because prosperity, or at least a fighting chance against poverty, that's a right for every human being.
But at the same time, we are completely unprepared to compete in this changing world. We can either adapt and make sure we retain decent standards of living, or we let ourselves slide and live in a reality of permanent 2-digit unemployment figures.
China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
That is true... for China. We still have rooms to grow. We still have not reached the apex of our potential. We have simply reached a world apex relative to our competitors.
At the end of the day, it is not about squashing rising nations back into poverty. And it is not necessarily about us being the one sole eco-political-military super power. It is about finding ways to improve our status quo in in this new century and global economic reality.
"MIT's working on a way to measure network capacity. Seems no one really knows how much data their network can handle. Makes you wonder about how then do you calculate expense when building out capacity? From the article: 'Recently, one of the most intriguing developments in information theory has been a different kind of coding,
Different from what? Compared to what, and on what context? The sentences preceeding that remark do not make any reference to any coding scheme whatsoever.
called network coding, in which the question is how to encode information in order to maximize the capacity of a network as a whole. For information theorists, it was natural to ask how these two types of coding might be combined: If you want to both minimize error and maximize capacity, which kind of coding do you apply where, and when do you do the decoding?'"
Two? Which is the other? There only mention (in the summary) of the newly proposed coding.
YES, I can infer that, for the most part (and then confirmed from reading the article) that the other coding the summary refers to is error-correcting coding. But it shouldn't be necessary to neither rely on prior knowledge (which varies from person to person) nor read TFA to find EXTREMELLY IMPORTANT information that is missing from a summary. A summary cannot leave crucial pieces out. Moreover, there are other types of coding related to information transmission (compression coding for instance) so at worst (and without having to rely on TFA), the summary is not just incomplete, but ambiguous.
I'm not trying to be mean or being a gramm3r nazi. Just remember to proof read your summaries.
Yeah, there's no group Anonymous. The rest of the story is irrelevant. Unless the point of the story is that the anonymous masses are the most powerful group, which is of course true.
I agree they wouldn't even make the top 1000 "most powerful organizations on Earth" but... Doesn't matter if they succeed to take down a website for a minute or a year, or even if they succeed at all. What matters is that it gets the online community talking
So do the the Kardashians.
about the issue.
What issue?
That's where the power comes from.
By that measure the Kardashians are a nuclear-armed superpower or something to that nature.
Is it the right kind of power or the wrong kind?
There is no power there. Stop reading too much into this rhetorical, make-believe shit.
That's up to each individual to decide.
People deciding that stupid shit is important (exhibit A: the Kardashians) does not necessarily imply that it is important.
I checked Wikipedia: they were going to release information on Zeta only because they had kidnapped an anonymous member. Los Zetas actually released their member, that's why they rescinded on OpCartel:
On 6 October 2011 a man identified himself as a member of Anonymous posted a video on the Internet (YouTube) under the account MrAnonymousguyfawkes stating that Los Zetas had kidnapped one of their group members and demanded Los Zetas Cartel release the individual.
...Meanwhile, a retired head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Puerto Rico, Mike Vigil, warned that "Los Zetas should take Anonymous seriously."...
...On 4 November 2011, Anonymous posted on the Iberoamerican Blog that the kidnapped member had been released and that they had confirmed his identity. They also stated that they would not be moving forward with releasing the information they had of several cartel members.
And you believed it? Here, I have a bridge to sell.
I bet the decent education your family received in Nicaragua enabled your family upward mobility in American society.
It actually did. We are all glad we immigrated to the land of a fair fighting chance.
When you emigrate, you take your education (especially if it's technical) with you and use it in the new country.
I don't think you're still making paper wraps for florists.
The lady with the people skills and contact... Sure she made a killing at that time and place.
However, she could only go so far with that.
And that's all that one needs. Success (at least in my opinion) is not about getting as higher up in the ladder as possible. It is about ensuring a sustainable, decent living for ourselves and families. That is all. Everything and anything beyond that is simply icing in the cake.
She's set up from selling paper wraps, but could she continue selling different paper products to other customers?
I wouldn't see why not. She was able to set herself up, against all odds, to sell something to somebody. Beyond that, everything is speculation.
Could she expand her business with her limited English even though her people skills more than made up for her shortcomings?
I doubt it.
But why would you doubt it? People would have doubt she could make a killing the way she did to begin with, against all the odds she had, in that narrow niche. The doubt that you have now is the same doubt other people had about her before, which is purely of a speculative nature. There is nothing intrinsic in her success that makes it impossible to do something else. Difficult? Yes, but so was her initial success.
Financial success is not 90% people skills. It's education or industry experience.
Not true. Purely anecdotal experience. When my family and I came from Nicaragua to the US in 1989, we paired with lady, also from Nicaragua to work from home making paper wraps for florists. This lady was the one with the contacts, and my family and I were the muscle. My family and I are/were decently educated and had a working knowledge of English (we couldn't speak it well yet, but we could read it.)
This other lady on the other hand, barely spoke any English, she could barely read in Spanish, and she needed a calculator to do simple math. She couldn't multiply without it. But you know what, she was the one getting the jobs, she had her own business. My family was one of the several local "offshore" employees she had in the Miami area. She would come and pick the finished product, pay us and bring more raw material, all while driving a dirt-poor car.
Penny earned, penny saved. She was already making an absurd amount of money. Some of her clients would berate her because of her lack of English language skills. It was painful to hurt to hear how she was treated, but she would simply shrug her shoulders. She would go on making sure everything was done and delivered on time, making contacts by simply knocking on flower shops' doors.
I don't know where she is now. Last time we saw her was in 1993. But she was already well off, this without significant reading ability in her native language, no English language skills, and almost zero-arithmetic skills. Zero education, and zero contacts.
My own experience is that "lucky breaks" come to those who seek them out and are willing to take risks, and under the right conditions, can capitalize on them.
Colonel, if you feel you haven't gotten your share of "lucky breaks", maybe you ought to try harder. It's amazing what can be accomplished if you try.
TFTY. Not to knock your argument, I agree with it. But I think in the form you presented, it is incomplete. You need an innate talent, and a drive to seek the opportunity. And the lucky break (which in great part is a factor of society and government), and then being at the right economic period (up or down depending on the nature of the lucky break), to capitalize it.
Coming from a dirt-poor country that was plagued for much of its existence by warlords, generalissimos, nepotism and a lack of the rule of law, you can work your ass off and be the next Sergey Brin/Einstein and still never get anywhere (if you are lucky, or robbed/killed at worst.)
Being in a developed country where the combination of government, the rule of law, society with developed institutions and a robust economy (even when in a recession), that gives you a fair, fighting chance AND the ability to mingle with like-minded people, AAAAAAAAND the opportunity to reap benefits proportional or greater than the effort put behind the plow.
The combination of all that is what makes success (and recovery from failures) a possibility.
I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.
Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world
That is an imbecile comment. You could have said they were the Islamic Terrorists, or Abortion Clinic bombers of the cyber-world. Instead, you decided to use an already tiring and inaccurate generalization. Well done.
Definition for figure of speech:
trope: language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense.
trope/trp/
Noun:A figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression. Verb:Create a trope. Synonyms:metaphor
metaphor/metfôr/ Noun:A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.
Anonymous is chaos. It's the true consequence of freedom. It's anarchy.
Anonymous is weather and piratebay a butterfly in NY. The comments will have an impact but you won't know what particular impact until after the hurricane has already passed.
The statement is interesting, given that Anonymous has been attacking music industry sites and other targets for some years, saying it is in support of the Pirate Bay.
How is that "interesting"? 'Anonymous' are a bunch of cyberthugs which is not the crowd of people The Pirate Bay want to be associated with and they have never wanted to be associated with. The Pirate Bay is trying to legitimately fight for copyright reform and having a bunch of script kiddies attach people in their name undermines that effort.
Exactly. Anonymous is all about the LOLs, latching to all and any cause, like a parasite, to the detriment of whatever cause they supposedly support. It's like a terrorist claiming support for Palestinians while blowing innocent people up halfway across the world, or a Christian Fundamentalist blowing up a clinic because God told him to support pro-life POVs that way.
Anonymous poisons every cause it latches to, robbing legitimacy in the process.
but we can still remove java and have less risk right ?
Indeed. I will have to disagree with "security advisor Roger Grimes" and point out that complexity breeds bugs; bugs breed security holes; Java's JIT and supporting libraries are just way too complex for their own good. This problem is made way more severe by Java's closed development model.
Java can be made secure, just not any time soon, not until Oracle gets a clue and opens up the development process.
What exactly is closed about it? You can see the libraries' code, and I'm not sure how the JIT has anything to do with the vulnerabilities being discussed.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe an open development process *can* (not necessarily will) ensure more desirable safety qualities. But what you are doing here is creating an argument for openness with a conclusion that does not follow the premise in a "is/ought" fallacy fashion. Unless you put some tangible "meat" in it, it simply does not follow.
You know, the real disadvantages of having the oppressive, income taxing government are much greater than the perceived advantage of having an 'educated' population. The so called education system is in a huge bubble in USA, people are getting gov't guaranteed loans - basically free money, because whatever they don't pay out in 15 years is forgiven, and the maximum amount anybody is going to have to pay monthly is only on top of 2 minimum poverty levels, and then it's only a 10% of that so called 'discretionary spending' , so the poverty level counts at 16,000USD/individual or 33,500 for a family of 4, 2 of these is is 32000 for individual, so if you make 50000, then you have to pay a maximum of 10% from the 18000 a year, or 1800 a year, or 150 a month, and this goes on for maximum of 15 or 20 years, so anything you owe beyond that is forgiven, it's a massive bailout/stimulus/incentive to spend huge globs of 'free' money.
So everybody should go back to college, and they should go to a college that provides the students with everything. Why not buy everybody an expensive car as part of 'education' process? Why not a house and all the furniture, a bunch of expensive clothing, whatever?
A college has all the incentives to waste money, the student has all the incentives to waste money, the colleges and students need to collude under this system and just buy globs of stuff and put it on the gov't backed education loans system. Of-course there is already a huge bubble in education loans, over a trillion USD of debt too.
All this so that anybody can go to college to major in Arts - sociology, why not? A language or literature or whatever passes for 'economics'.
Though you mention some real issues that need addressing, you gather them all up to create a hyperbole. Nicely done.
So AFAIC costs of this system far outweigh the benefits,
That is true only within the hyperbole that you constructed for the sake of supporting your argument.
in fact there can be no benefits once gov't gets involved in anything beyond its direct mandate - border protection being one of those, but not healthcare, not education, not housing, not banking, not money, not debt, not insurance, not regulating businesses, not taxing income,
That is as dogmatic as Mao's Great Leap Forward, with the only difference that your POV is sitting on the other side of the political spectrum. It is unrealistic and unworkable. Or what, do you think everything is going to regulate itself? I'm a conservative that believes in small government (where small means efficient, and not just about size reduction or elimination of services simply for fiscal or ideological sake of it). However, I find the claim that government has no say or fiscal policy on education or taxation absolutely ludicrious, a Greap Leap Rightward no matter how you cut it.
not telling people how to live their lives, what to smoke and who to fuck.
More hyperbole. I agree with you that governments should have no saying in how we live our private lives. But to bundle them with other issues like education or taxing, that's just being dogmatic for dogmatism' sake.
Slashdot Mirror
There's absolutely nothing dishonest about it. If you offer a minimal pay job, you might be happy to find a maximal work employee, but you sure as heck shouldn't *expect* it. If you want to attract a better class of employee, offer a better pay check.
Do you know what an employer is telling you when he pays minimum wage? He's saying I think your job is so worthless that I'd pay you *less*, except that *IT'S AGAINST THE LAW*.
Someone working 3 full-time minimum wage jobs is below the poverty line.
You and I certainly operate with different moral compasses then. I've never hired anyone for minimum wage, but I certainly have had worked for minimum wage. It never crossed my mind to do the minimum required work just because I was getting paid the minimum wage, something to do with the way I was raised. That has served me well as I've climbed up the ladder.
It is not about doing what people (a minimum-wage paying employer for instance) expects of you, but what you expect of yourself as an ethical worker. There is a difference, the nuance is missed to most apparently. You either get it or you don't. Only you know.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think.
Probably. But if they actually are smart and observant, they would observe that the smart thing to do when they are offered minimal pay is to provide minimal effort.
That's not smart. That's dishonest. Nobody forces no one to take a minimal pay job. You take a job, and you accept the pay, you do the job (I talked from experience since I've flipped burgers for minimum wage.) What the hell is wrong with you people that you think your duty to do your job is a function of the hourly wage you so willingly accept?
Smarter? Probably, but this is a matter of being observant. Pick someone bored looking, towards the end of their shift, or go when lines are long. They won't care due to either boredom or stress. The smarter ones will be more vulnerable during the boredom times, the less smart will be more vulnerable during the packed times.
Having worked in pretty boring cashier/salesperson positions, I call bs on it. People do not necessary act on it, but they tend to note discrepancies and alert management. Yes, there is always the emo kid who doesn't give a crap about anything, bored as hell behind the counter. But those are the exception rather than the rule, whether blue collar or white collar (I've been both.)
I think the bigger questions are "WTF was the VP of SAP doing pulling a cheap ass eBay scam like what your average meth head would pull? Is he a kelpto? Is the company in trouble? Is his pay THAT shitty?" These questions sound more relevant to me than how long he was able to pull this shit off.
The VP title means less than you think. At some companies, they hand these out like candy. He could easily have been making under $100K a year.
What "VP" means is really non-sequitur, peanuts as far as logic goes when it comes to asking WTF is a decently paid professional, 6-figure or not, pulling a cheap-ass ghetto scam at a local store.
That was my first thought as well. I am surprised to read so far without anyone questioning this.
Don't be. This is slashdot, not a place where logic or questions about the nature of morals are at the forefront (not without involving logical fallacies and breaking Godwin's law.)
I would expect them to see that the description that comes up isn't what the product is.
No. You expect wrong. Cashiers are expected to scan and charge, not to do verification and validation. Moreover, at least in Florida and other states IIRC (from the time I used to work in Home Depot), the law typically mandates that you, the seller, must charge what is in the label.
In most cases, you cannot go tell a buyer "naaaaah, our bad, we slapped the wrong barcode, and we have to charge you the actual price which is more than what comes off the bar code." You typically have to sell the advertised price, even if it is wrong. Typically that is done with some type of mark down. Then you write that as a loss, and you check your inventory and labels to make sure things are kosher.
So, no, you don't expect your cashiers to be the first line of defense against this kind of fraudulent activity.
Possibly after seeing several incidents, similar mark downs and inventory check-ups, Target must have concluded that all of these were the result of fraudulent activity, and finally caught up with the offender (a filthy-rich VP for SAP's everlasting shame.) And that's how it is supposed to work - not by expecting your cashiers to be the all-aware-sentinels. There are a million practical reasons why you do not want to do that as it typically puts cashiers in a clash course with customers. That is the job for people assigned and trained for that type of work. Cashiers ring products and collect the moolah, that is all.
Amazing that the OP was scored insightful.
We're all glad you're so damn special and able to choose the projects/positions that you want to do. Some of us have to take what we can get.
But that is part of the game of being a contractor (I've been a contractor and an employee btw.) It is true that typically we take what we get, but that is also part of the formula. Even in this depressed economy, if you really work your network and your skills, you can have a better chance of looking for something more in tandem with that which you seek.
Working for 8 years as a contractor and stating that he has had no paid vacation? Hello? I would say that 8 years of contracting work should already give a hint that such is the game of working as a contractor (no benefits.) So, the hourly salary and OT should more than compensate for that. And if that is not the case, and this person has been at it for 8 years, c'mon, whose at fault? We are talking 2004, the prime for finding contracting jobs with paid OT. Same since 2011 (yes, things are getting better.)
When you have a job, be it as an employee or contractor, you always, always, always look for ways to stay ahead. If you never do anything to improve your situation, if you only wait till you get the boot to look for options, then you will always get the short stick of the deal, and whose fault would that be?
I get you, sometimes we have to take whatever shit is available, but that is how reality is, if you let it, if you are not proactive with your career choices.
And I'm not saying this to be spiteful. I say it out of experience because I've done the same career blunders myself. I could literally be wipping my ass with rolls of benjamins had I taken charge of my career 8-10 years ago. But I didn't and I commit a series of ultimately costly blunders, waiting for things to happen (instead of looking for ways to make it happen.)
If you are getting shit for 8 years, you know what, time to wake the hell up and make shit happen the way you want. Have a plan, be aggressive and be pro-active. Businesses do not give a shit about you or me, and they will not compensate you as you deserve unless you make sure they do.
As for his political platform, Massie calls himself a “Constitutional conservative,” and he identifies with the Tea Party—at least the members in his home state, whom he says “defy the stereotype in the media.” As he explains, “In northern Kentucky, Tea Parties focus on fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. All of the other stuff around the edges—that maybe some Tea Party folks are for and some are against—don’t get rolled up into the agenda.”
I oppose the general clown-gun-ho-fest trend of the Tea Party, but I will listen to someone who claims affiliation to it if that person can present a coherent argument or agenda that is or appears to be logically constructed, even if it is one that I do not agree with. In particular, I would be willing to listen to a Tea Party member (or one that claims to be) if that person can be a moderating factor.
Okay I'm just going ahead and apologize for not noticing your "summary refers to" bit in your paragraph. But I think my point still stands - the summary is sufficient for the purposes of summarizing the article.
How can it be sufficient when it refers to two different codes while only mentioning one? Just because you say your point stands does not magically makes it so. The only way to ensure that the summary is in tandem with the article is to read the article. And that defeats the purpose of a summary. If the summary refers to two different coding schemes, but only mentions one by name, then the question follows: is the presence of another coding scheme different from network coding relevant to the model presented by the article? If so, why is the other coding's name ommitted? If it is not relevant, then it is superfluous information that has no place in a summary (but could have a place in the article in place, in a "prior research/history/intro" section, for instance.)
Summaries have very specific purposes, and they need to be written in a very specific way. And as a result, they need proofreading, perhaps more so than the article itself.
The only engineer president of the US I'm aware of is Herbert Hoover. Who was a fairly decent guy, but screwed up big time when the Great Depression hit.
I hear what you are saying, but I'd say, look across the oceans, and not only to China. Look at India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, who is one of the most effective and respected leaders in the world, with a Doctorate in Economics and a Honorary Doctorate in Law. Germany's Angela Merkel who has a Doctorate in Quantum Chemistry. Just look at the Chinese technocrat political class of the 80's and 90's who are responsible for China's growth.
Yes, a STEM background does not preclude one from making mistakes, but a single data point (Hoover in this case) does not make a case. OTH, we can conclude that this country economic, foreign and fiscal policies of the last three decades and its relation to our economic development have really been heading the wrong way. Whether there is causality or co-relation between these policies and political establishment devoid of STEM professionals, that is up for historians, economists and political scientists of the near/distant future to decide.
This is not to say that lawyers and businesspeople are useless or pernicious. All the contrary, we need a diversified political establishment. And we can only reach to that point by increasing the number of STEM professionals into the political arena.
The only problem with that is that he's with the Tea Party, which kind of blows a hole in your argument.
Not necessarily. BTW, I used to be a former Tea Party sympatizer... at the very, very early stage up and until it got to bed with right-wing, homophobe creationist radicals bent on attacking Obama, the person (and to be honest, the whole thing has a racial component to it, which I obviously disaprove of.) I've been attacking the Tea Party in most issues everytime I get a chance ever since (or at least the radical right-wing faction that has been controlling the Tea Party.)
But there are a lot of former Tea Party sympathizers (read former) who wanted a dialog oriented on fiscal conservative views (not on messianic, apocalyptic socio-religious conservative views.)
That is the type of people conservatives and liberals need to reach and talk and have dialogs and compromise. It also goes without saying that there are, as well, independent-minded left-leaning individuals that need to be reached.
So it is important not to draw generalizations and guilt-by-association due to party affiliations. A party affiliation does not mean complete obedience to a particular ideology. It can also mean trying to be a reformer, or subscribing to some basic principles, or being a dissident within that movement.
That "blow a hole in the argument" kind of thing cannot be said just based on party affiliations. You can only say that when you take careful, objective measure of a man ( Mr. Massie in question), his personal views, his record of actions and current political agenda.
I would disagree with Mr. Massie for campaigning for Rand Paul (I don't agree with the later's economic/political agenda.) But that seems one of the many items that need examination.
Also, it seems like this pro-guns/pro-tea-party associations are being blown out of proportion. The summary would make the impression Massin is a gun-totting survavilist living in a survalist underground compound, and that he is a Luddite for chosing a simpler life. Talking about character assasination if you ask me. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is just pure bullshit.
NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule.
Our chance to do what? Become the world's largest economy? Get the world's largest army? Bring indoor plumbing and electricity to 99% of the population? Because we're 'winning' in all those things.
And that is a myopic way of looking at things. Don't look at the marginal things in which we are winning (yes, they are marginal). This is our chance now to fix the things that are broken: our education; our health care costs; our geo-political standing; our anal fixation with shareholder capitalism (instead of relying on stakeholder capitalism); our blue-collar unemployment figures; our lack of opportunities for blue-collar workers; etc, etc, etc.
It is not just the Chinese that are growing. It's everybody in the world. India, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa. Soon others will follow, and thank God to that because prosperity, or at least a fighting chance against poverty, that's a right for every human being.
But at the same time, we are completely unprepared to compete in this changing world. We can either adapt and make sure we retain decent standards of living, or we let ourselves slide and live in a reality of permanent 2-digit unemployment figures.
China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
That is true... for China. We still have rooms to grow. We still have not reached the apex of our potential. We have simply reached a world apex relative to our competitors.
At the end of the day, it is not about squashing rising nations back into poverty. And it is not necessarily about us being the one sole eco-political-military super power. It is about finding ways to improve our status quo in in this new century and global economic reality.
"MIT's working on a way to measure network capacity. Seems no one really knows how much data their network can handle. Makes you wonder about how then do you calculate expense when building out capacity? From the article: 'Recently, one of the most intriguing developments in information theory has been a different kind of coding,
Different from what? Compared to what, and on what context? The sentences preceeding that remark do not make any reference to any coding scheme whatsoever.
called network coding, in which the question is how to encode information in order to maximize the capacity of a network as a whole. For information theorists, it was natural to ask how these two types of coding might be combined: If you want to both minimize error and maximize capacity, which kind of coding do you apply where, and when do you do the decoding?'"
Two? Which is the other? There only mention (in the summary) of the newly proposed coding.
YES, I can infer that, for the most part (and then confirmed from reading the article) that the other coding the summary refers to is error-correcting coding. But it shouldn't be necessary to neither rely on prior knowledge (which varies from person to person) nor read TFA to find EXTREMELLY IMPORTANT information that is missing from a summary. A summary cannot leave crucial pieces out. Moreover, there are other types of coding related to information transmission (compression coding for instance) so at worst (and without having to rely on TFA), the summary is not just incomplete, but ambiguous.
I'm not trying to be mean or being a gramm3r nazi. Just remember to proof read your summaries.
Yeah, there's no group Anonymous. The rest of the story is irrelevant. Unless the point of the story is that the anonymous masses are the most powerful group, which is of course true.
Depends on the size of the masses.
I agree they wouldn't even make the top 1000 "most powerful organizations on Earth" but... Doesn't matter if they succeed to take down a website for a minute or a year, or even if they succeed at all. What matters is that it gets the online community talking
So do the the Kardashians.
about the issue.
What issue?
That's where the power comes from.
By that measure the Kardashians are a nuclear-armed superpower or something to that nature.
Is it the right kind of power or the wrong kind?
There is no power there. Stop reading too much into this rhetorical, make-believe shit.
That's up to each individual to decide.
People deciding that stupid shit is important (exhibit A: the Kardashians) does not necessarily imply that it is important.
I checked Wikipedia: they were going to release information on Zeta only because they had kidnapped an anonymous member. Los Zetas actually released their member, that's why they rescinded on OpCartel:
On 6 October 2011 a man identified himself as a member of Anonymous posted a video on the Internet (YouTube) under the account MrAnonymousguyfawkes stating that Los Zetas had kidnapped one of their group members and demanded Los Zetas Cartel release the individual.
And you believed it? Here, I have a bridge to sell.
I bet the decent education your family received in Nicaragua enabled your family upward mobility in American society.
It actually did. We are all glad we immigrated to the land of a fair fighting chance. When you emigrate, you take your education (especially if it's technical) with you and use it in the new country. I don't think you're still making paper wraps for florists.
The lady with the people skills and contact... Sure she made a killing at that time and place. However, she could only go so far with that.
And that's all that one needs. Success (at least in my opinion) is not about getting as higher up in the ladder as possible. It is about ensuring a sustainable, decent living for ourselves and families. That is all. Everything and anything beyond that is simply icing in the cake.
She's set up from selling paper wraps, but could she continue selling different paper products to other customers?
I wouldn't see why not. She was able to set herself up, against all odds, to sell something to somebody. Beyond that, everything is speculation. Could she expand her business with her limited English even though her people skills more than made up for her shortcomings? I doubt it.
But why would you doubt it? People would have doubt she could make a killing the way she did to begin with, against all the odds she had, in that narrow niche. The doubt that you have now is the same doubt other people had about her before, which is purely of a speculative nature. There is nothing intrinsic in her success that makes it impossible to do something else. Difficult? Yes, but so was her initial success.
Financial success is not 90% people skills. It's education or industry experience.
Not true. Purely anecdotal experience. When my family and I came from Nicaragua to the US in 1989, we paired with lady, also from Nicaragua to work from home making paper wraps for florists. This lady was the one with the contacts, and my family and I were the muscle. My family and I are/were decently educated and had a working knowledge of English (we couldn't speak it well yet, but we could read it.)
This other lady on the other hand, barely spoke any English, she could barely read in Spanish, and she needed a calculator to do simple math. She couldn't multiply without it. But you know what, she was the one getting the jobs, she had her own business. My family was one of the several local "offshore" employees she had in the Miami area. She would come and pick the finished product, pay us and bring more raw material, all while driving a dirt-poor car.
Penny earned, penny saved. She was already making an absurd amount of money. Some of her clients would berate her because of her lack of English language skills. It was painful to hurt to hear how she was treated, but she would simply shrug her shoulders. She would go on making sure everything was done and delivered on time, making contacts by simply knocking on flower shops' doors.
I don't know where she is now. Last time we saw her was in 1993. But she was already well off, this without significant reading ability in her native language, no English language skills, and almost zero-arithmetic skills. Zero education, and zero contacts.
Wherever she is, I hope she is still doing well.
My own experience is that "lucky breaks" come to those who seek them out and are willing to take risks, and under the right conditions, can capitalize on them.
Colonel, if you feel you haven't gotten your share of "lucky breaks", maybe you ought to try harder. It's amazing what can be accomplished if you try.
TFTY. Not to knock your argument, I agree with it. But I think in the form you presented, it is incomplete. You need an innate talent, and a drive to seek the opportunity. And the lucky break (which in great part is a factor of society and government), and then being at the right economic period (up or down depending on the nature of the lucky break), to capitalize it.
Coming from a dirt-poor country that was plagued for much of its existence by warlords, generalissimos, nepotism and a lack of the rule of law, you can work your ass off and be the next Sergey Brin/Einstein and still never get anywhere (if you are lucky, or robbed/killed at worst.)
Being in a developed country where the combination of government, the rule of law, society with developed institutions and a robust economy (even when in a recession), that gives you a fair, fighting chance AND the ability to mingle with like-minded people, AAAAAAAAND the opportunity to reap benefits proportional or greater than the effort put behind the plow.
The combination of all that is what makes success (and recovery from failures) a possibility.
I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.
Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world
That is an imbecile comment. You could have said they were the Islamic Terrorists, or Abortion Clinic bombers of the cyber-world. Instead, you decided to use an already tiring and inaccurate generalization. Well done.
It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.
No.
I think that your comment is hyberbole
No shit! Stop the presses!!!((1<<3)|3)
hyperbole /hprbl/:
Noun:Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Synonyms: exaggeration - hyperbola - overstatement
DDoS is not like using a grenade on a bus.
</sigh> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-01-05/
Fine, let's spell it out for you:
Definition for figure of speech:
trope: language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense.
trope /trp/
Noun:A figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression.
Verb:Create a trope.
Synonyms:metaphor
metaphor /metfôr/
Noun:A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.
You underestimate Anonymous.
Anonymous is chaos. It's the true consequence of freedom. It's anarchy.
Anonymous is weather and piratebay a butterfly in NY. The comments will have an impact but you won't know what particular impact until after the hurricane has already passed.
That is so profound </rolls eyes>
The statement is interesting, given that Anonymous has been attacking music industry sites and other targets for some years, saying it is in support of the Pirate Bay.
How is that "interesting"? 'Anonymous' are a bunch of cyberthugs which is not the crowd of people The Pirate Bay want to be associated with and they have never wanted to be associated with. The Pirate Bay is trying to legitimately fight for copyright reform and having a bunch of script kiddies attach people in their name undermines that effort.
Exactly. Anonymous is all about the LOLs, latching to all and any cause, like a parasite, to the detriment of whatever cause they supposedly support. It's like a terrorist claiming support for Palestinians while blowing innocent people up halfway across the world, or a Christian Fundamentalist blowing up a clinic because God told him to support pro-life POVs that way.
Anonymous poisons every cause it latches to, robbing legitimacy in the process.
but we can still remove java and have less risk right ?
Indeed. I will have to disagree with "security advisor Roger Grimes" and point out that complexity breeds bugs; bugs breed security holes; Java's JIT and supporting libraries are just way too complex for their own good. This problem is made way more severe by Java's closed development model.
Java can be made secure, just not any time soon, not until Oracle gets a clue and opens up the development process.
What exactly is closed about it? You can see the libraries' code, and I'm not sure how the JIT has anything to do with the vulnerabilities being discussed.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe an open development process *can* (not necessarily will) ensure more desirable safety qualities. But what you are doing here is creating an argument for openness with a conclusion that does not follow the premise in a "is/ought" fallacy fashion. Unless you put some tangible "meat" in it, it simply does not follow.
You know, the real disadvantages of having the oppressive, income taxing government are much greater than the perceived advantage of having an 'educated' population. The so called education system is in a huge bubble in USA, people are getting gov't guaranteed loans - basically free money, because whatever they don't pay out in 15 years is forgiven, and the maximum amount anybody is going to have to pay monthly is only on top of 2 minimum poverty levels, and then it's only a 10% of that so called 'discretionary spending' , so the poverty level counts at 16,000USD/individual or 33,500 for a family of 4, 2 of these is is 32000 for individual, so if you make 50000, then you have to pay a maximum of 10% from the 18000 a year, or 1800 a year, or 150 a month, and this goes on for maximum of 15 or 20 years, so anything you owe beyond that is forgiven, it's a massive bailout/stimulus/incentive to spend huge globs of 'free' money.
So everybody should go back to college, and they should go to a college that provides the students with everything. Why not buy everybody an expensive car as part of 'education' process? Why not a house and all the furniture, a bunch of expensive clothing, whatever?
A college has all the incentives to waste money, the student has all the incentives to waste money, the colleges and students need to collude under this system and just buy globs of stuff and put it on the gov't backed education loans system. Of-course there is already a huge bubble in education loans, over a trillion USD of debt too.
All this so that anybody can go to college to major in Arts - sociology, why not? A language or literature or whatever passes for 'economics'.
Though you mention some real issues that need addressing, you gather them all up to create a hyperbole. Nicely done.
So AFAIC costs of this system far outweigh the benefits,
That is true only within the hyperbole that you constructed for the sake of supporting your argument.
in fact there can be no benefits once gov't gets involved in anything beyond its direct mandate - border protection being one of those, but not healthcare, not education, not housing, not banking, not money, not debt, not insurance, not regulating businesses, not taxing income,
That is as dogmatic as Mao's Great Leap Forward, with the only difference that your POV is sitting on the other side of the political spectrum. It is unrealistic and unworkable. Or what, do you think everything is going to regulate itself? I'm a conservative that believes in small government (where small means efficient, and not just about size reduction or elimination of services simply for fiscal or ideological sake of it). However, I find the claim that government has no say or fiscal policy on education or taxation absolutely ludicrious, a Greap Leap Rightward no matter how you cut it.
not telling people how to live their lives, what to smoke and who to fuck.
More hyperbole. I agree with you that governments should have no saying in how we live our private lives. But to bundle them with other issues like education or taxing, that's just being dogmatic for dogmatism' sake.