There is a set of jobs where the laws and supply of demand don't apply. For a simpler example, take professional footballers - there's been a lot of fuss about the huge pay some of those earn too.
The top clups want to employ, oh, about 500 footballers (Just a quick guess). They want the best. The very best. The top five hundred in the world, and they will compete with each other to pay the most to get them.
In most industries, supply and demand would kick in at that point: Pay would rise, which would motivate more people to go into football as a career, which would bring the pay down again. It'd still be high (It's a skilled job) but not obscenly so. But that doesn't happen - because it doesn't matter if a million or ten million or half the world population all go into football as a career: The top 500 is still just 500 players. The top club recruitment pool hasn't grown, it's just gotten harder to get into. So the obscene pay continues.
We invented the superinjunction: A court order against that prohibits disclosing specified information, as well as prohibits disclosing the existence of the injunction. They are civil things, usually used by celebrities to prevent the the press from disclosing some juicy scandalous gossip about their personal lives, most commonly extramarital affairs. Just how often this happens is something of a mystery though, as the super-injunctions are secret by nature - the only time the public finds out is when the information leaks by some other channel. Even in court records, the person bringing the injunction is only identified by a three-letter random codename.
The obvious solution is to place the minimal interface hardware inside, and the replaceable parts outside. The wires go on the brain, and the computer goes on a hat, connected via socket/magnetic coupling/ultra-low-power radio/transdermal optics.
Or DHCPv6. Either works. You don't 'need' DHCP for IPv6, but you can still use it if you want a lot more control over allocations and configurations for things like booting from network.
You still have to worry about them when optimising your routing config. But it does mean no more problems when you've allocated a/24 to the wireless and management just mentioned the hundred visiting VIPs all want to put their laptops on tomorrow for the big conference.
Skype actually works. It uses a really, really ugly bodge to achieve it. The skype central server tells both ends to start sending UDP packets to the other on agreed-upon ports, hopefully (If there are no conflicts) achieving a mutual outgoing connection and tricking the NAT routers. It doesn't always work - the port numbers have to be assigned based on guesswork, in the hope that no-one else on the same gateway is already using them.
Switches shouldn't need to do IPv6. They operate at the next level down, so it makes no difference, except for the management interface. That's the idea anyway - there are sometimes issues with programers assuming things they should not assume.
Because CGN involves plugging a couple of expensive new bits of hardware into the network core and making near-trivial alterations to a few routers. Properly supporting IPv6 means replacing or making major configuration changes to every router, tens of thousands of them, and likely a lot of endpoint devices that are in people's homes too. It's a major network overhaul - the only things that wouldn't need replacing or reconfiguring from scratch are the cables themselves. CGN is just cheaper - plus it has a nice bonus for the ISPs, in that the things it breaks are mostly things they don't like anyway, like p2p file sharing and people trying to run business servers on a domestic connection.
Most ISPs assign staticish addresses. They are technically dynamic, but change very infrequently - in my case, no more than once or twice a year, baring a change of modem or network card.
1. Workplace has confidential information. 2. Workplace puts up elaborate high-security protocols and technology intended to protect that data. 3. Workers find that all this security is getting in the way of actually doing their jobs. 4. Workers ignore protocol and devise their own means of going behind the backs of those dictating security. 5. Embarassing breach occurs.
A common example occurs when IT dictates all passwords must be at least seven characters an include mixed case and punctuation. Faced with difficulty remembering passwords, the staff respond by putting them on post-it notes under their keyboards. Or when getting a new staff member approved for access to the confidential data takes a few days, leading to staff letting temps borrow their credentials so they can get started right away.
The problem with that approach is that a lot of those internet criminals are actually just immature teenagers - all they really need is a slap on the wrist to scare them straight and a good talking-to by their parents. Throwing them in jail is a good way to make sure they turn into real career criminals - if you can't get employment in legitimate work, what other choice is there? It's the same problem with heavy sentences for drug possession.
Almost every decent computer security expert dabbled in black-hating a little when they were learning, if only to prove to themselves what they could do or for the fun of adventuring into forbidden places. I used to port-scan for open netbios shares back in the win9x era - found a lot of people who had their entire C: drive open to the world. I left text files on their desktops warning them about the open access.
It's also important to give them the illusion of power. The easiest way is to give them elections to participate in, but make sure all the candidates with a chance of winning are in agreement on all the really important issues. It also helps to designate a couple of 'agreed disagreements' the candidates can fight over publically without risking actually changing the balance of power. Abortion, gay rights, that sort of thing - regardless of the outcome, it's not going to risk unseating anyone from their position at the top of the wealth pile.
That's because 'ology' *does* mean science. It's greek, a form of the word 'logos.' It's more accurately translated as 'justification,' 'description' or most literally as 'word.' The suffix was adopted into english to mean 'study of,' usually with a greek word as the prefix.
You have to be careful with those in the UK. The UK and Britain are not the same thing, and the Scottish have a lot of pride in their national identity. Using the wrong term can upset people.
Short version: There was a study that appeared to show abortion increased the risk of breast cancer. This wasn't a deliberately fraudulent study, but later analysis found a flaw: They'd compared women who underwent abortion with those who carried their pregnancy to term. It turns out that pregnancy actually has a protective effect, lowering the risk of breast cancer - but without a control population of non-pregnent women, it appeared as if abortion was causing an increase in breast cancer risk. Easy mistake, but one that played into the very heated debate. The claimed link was quickly picked up by a pro-life movement eager to put aside their mysogynistic public image with some new pro-woman arguments, and has since become a staple part of their rhetoric. From there it just progressed to the usual follow-up for any publicly disputed medical matter: Lots of studies carried out by many different groups, some with an agenda and some without, and the political types then cherry-picking the ones that agree with their position to promote.
That, or to stop someone from faffing around with a phone call and slowing the line down. The managers aren't going to like people who sit around for five minutes after the tank is full chatting while a queue builds.
Scares usually persist long after any scientific backing is gone. Look at anti-vax, for example - the one study showing a link between vaccines and autism has not only been discredited but exposed as an outright fraud by a doctor who was paid to produce specific results. Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless. Or the abortion-breast-cancer link - originating in a study which misinterpreted results due to the lack of a true control group and now rejected by just about every reputable cancer-related organisation. Yet, once again, belief in the link remains widespread in the pro-life movement - largely because they wish it were true. This is the same thing again - it doesn't matter how many studies show no adverse effects, we're still going to see a lot of people claiming wireless networks gives them a migraine and worrying about phone-induced cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a set of jobs where the laws and supply of demand don't apply. For a simpler example, take professional footballers - there's been a lot of fuss about the huge pay some of those earn too.
The top clups want to employ, oh, about 500 footballers (Just a quick guess). They want the best. The very best. The top five hundred in the world, and they will compete with each other to pay the most to get them.
In most industries, supply and demand would kick in at that point: Pay would rise, which would motivate more people to go into football as a career, which would bring the pay down again. It'd still be high (It's a skilled job) but not obscenly so. But that doesn't happen - because it doesn't matter if a million or ten million or half the world population all go into football as a career: The top 500 is still just 500 players. The top club recruitment pool hasn't grown, it's just gotten harder to get into. So the obscene pay continues.
We invented the superinjunction: A court order against that prohibits disclosing specified information, as well as prohibits disclosing the existence of the injunction. They are civil things, usually used by celebrities to prevent the the press from disclosing some juicy scandalous gossip about their personal lives, most commonly extramarital affairs. Just how often this happens is something of a mystery though, as the super-injunctions are secret by nature - the only time the public finds out is when the information leaks by some other channel. Even in court records, the person bringing the injunction is only identified by a three-letter random codename.
The obvious solution is to place the minimal interface hardware inside, and the replaceable parts outside. The wires go on the brain, and the computer goes on a hat, connected via socket/magnetic coupling/ultra-low-power radio/transdermal optics.
Or DHCPv6. Either works. You don't 'need' DHCP for IPv6, but you can still use it if you want a lot more control over allocations and configurations for things like booting from network.
You still have to worry about them when optimising your routing config. But it does mean no more problems when you've allocated a /24 to the wireless and management just mentioned the hundred visiting VIPs all want to put their laptops on tomorrow for the big conference.
"I was going to ask if you'd start up the starcraft server and play a round."
That's going to make for some fun shorthand conversations:
"Feety mark triple-allzer mark 2-dubnil mark eff-eight-double-eff mark fee twenty-one mark six-seven-cee-eff."
Skype actually works. It uses a really, really ugly bodge to achieve it. The skype central server tells both ends to start sending UDP packets to the other on agreed-upon ports, hopefully (If there are no conflicts) achieving a mutual outgoing connection and tricking the NAT routers. It doesn't always work - the port numbers have to be assigned based on guesswork, in the hope that no-one else on the same gateway is already using them.
Switches shouldn't need to do IPv6. They operate at the next level down, so it makes no difference, except for the management interface. That's the idea anyway - there are sometimes issues with programers assuming things they should not assume.
Because CGN involves plugging a couple of expensive new bits of hardware into the network core and making near-trivial alterations to a few routers. Properly supporting IPv6 means replacing or making major configuration changes to every router, tens of thousands of them, and likely a lot of endpoint devices that are in people's homes too. It's a major network overhaul - the only things that wouldn't need replacing or reconfiguring from scratch are the cables themselves. CGN is just cheaper - plus it has a nice bonus for the ISPs, in that the things it breaks are mostly things they don't like anyway, like p2p file sharing and people trying to run business servers on a domestic connection.
Most ISPs assign staticish addresses. They are technically dynamic, but change very infrequently - in my case, no more than once or twice a year, baring a change of modem or network card.
1. Workplace has confidential information.
2. Workplace puts up elaborate high-security protocols and technology intended to protect that data.
3. Workers find that all this security is getting in the way of actually doing their jobs.
4. Workers ignore protocol and devise their own means of going behind the backs of those dictating security.
5. Embarassing breach occurs.
A common example occurs when IT dictates all passwords must be at least seven characters an include mixed case and punctuation. Faced with difficulty remembering passwords, the staff respond by putting them on post-it notes under their keyboards. Or when getting a new staff member approved for access to the confidential data takes a few days, leading to staff letting temps borrow their credentials so they can get started right away.
Sometimes, some people just deserve trolling.
The problem with that approach is that a lot of those internet criminals are actually just immature teenagers - all they really need is a slap on the wrist to scare them straight and a good talking-to by their parents. Throwing them in jail is a good way to make sure they turn into real career criminals - if you can't get employment in legitimate work, what other choice is there? It's the same problem with heavy sentences for drug possession.
Almost every decent computer security expert dabbled in black-hating a little when they were learning, if only to prove to themselves what they could do or for the fun of adventuring into forbidden places. I used to port-scan for open netbios shares back in the win9x era - found a lot of people who had their entire C: drive open to the world. I left text files on their desktops warning them about the open access.
Yes, but they don't like to be reminded of it.
It's also important to give them the illusion of power. The easiest way is to give them elections to participate in, but make sure all the candidates with a chance of winning are in agreement on all the really important issues. It also helps to designate a couple of 'agreed disagreements' the candidates can fight over publically without risking actually changing the balance of power. Abortion, gay rights, that sort of thing - regardless of the outcome, it's not going to risk unseating anyone from their position at the top of the wealth pile.
That's because 'ology' *does* mean science. It's greek, a form of the word 'logos.' It's more accurately translated as 'justification,' 'description' or most literally as 'word.' The suffix was adopted into english to mean 'study of,' usually with a greek word as the prefix.
The technique for producing the horoscope seems to vary wildly - a lot of the 'ancient wisdom' seems to include Pluto somewhere.
You have to be careful with those in the UK. The UK and Britain are not the same thing, and the Scottish have a lot of pride in their national identity. Using the wrong term can upset people.
In America, a socialist is a person who wishes to spend money on anything other than the military.
Short version:
There was a study that appeared to show abortion increased the risk of breast cancer. This wasn't a deliberately fraudulent study, but later analysis found a flaw: They'd compared women who underwent abortion with those who carried their pregnancy to term. It turns out that pregnancy actually has a protective effect, lowering the risk of breast cancer - but without a control population of non-pregnent women, it appeared as if abortion was causing an increase in breast cancer risk. Easy mistake, but one that played into the very heated debate. The claimed link was quickly picked up by a pro-life movement eager to put aside their mysogynistic public image with some new pro-woman arguments, and has since become a staple part of their rhetoric. From there it just progressed to the usual follow-up for any publicly disputed medical matter: Lots of studies carried out by many different groups, some with an agenda and some without, and the political types then cherry-picking the ones that agree with their position to promote.
That, or to stop someone from faffing around with a phone call and slowing the line down. The managers aren't going to like people who sit around for five minutes after the tank is full chatting while a queue builds.
Do you want me to insult some 'natural food' hippies to balance it out?
Scares usually persist long after any scientific backing is gone. Look at anti-vax, for example - the one study showing a link between vaccines and autism has not only been discredited but exposed as an outright fraud by a doctor who was paid to produce specific results. Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless. Or the abortion-breast-cancer link - originating in a study which misinterpreted results due to the lack of a true control group and now rejected by just about every reputable cancer-related organisation. Yet, once again, belief in the link remains widespread in the pro-life movement - largely because they wish it were true. This is the same thing again - it doesn't matter how many studies show no adverse effects, we're still going to see a lot of people claiming wireless networks gives them a migraine and worrying about phone-induced cancer.
That means it's probably safe to assume the ones we're not allowed to know of are substantially better than that.