You mean by acknowledging the risk? I don't get why slashdot's audience tends to skew towards "radiation is good" fanboyism. Radiation poisoning is cumulative. And as our society continues to add exposure here, exposure there... it adds up. And maybe that means we are accepting a 10% higher rate of incidence, or maybe that number is even higher. The only fear I see is fear of contradicting the notably greedy mobile phone industry. Which seems odd, given how often there is an article on slashdot justifiably trashing AT&T or Verizon, that slashdot readers are so quick to rush to their defense in the face of cell phone radiation being potentially carcinogenic.
Neither Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" (away) nor Chalmer's various "zomg zombie" arguments, however compelling, seem to get us any closer to understanding what consciousness is. Applying Quantum theory is almost adorable... like physicists want their very own god of the gaps.
1. Something not yet explained (what the hell IS consciousness itself?)
2. Add something mysterious with a dash of causal perfume
3. ???
4. Profit.
Maybe someday we will figure out a way to figure out what consciousness itself is, but we are not close to that day yet.
An anonymous Firefox dev has suggested adding a futuristic "TaskBar" to replace to old fashioned URL Bar. "Imagine, it could house a menu, tabs, perhaps widgets like a clock or volume control... ". This new bar might be moved to the bottom of the screen to maximize usability. "We ran extensive user tests - selecting our users randomly from a large pool of Gnome 3 enthusiasts and Unity developers alike".
When reached for comment, reps from competing browsers had this to say:
IE: "Hawt."
Safari: "Who needs any sort of bar? You should be able to control your browser simply by caressing the screen with predefined strokes."
Chrome: "Oh yeah? In our next version the TaskBar and Menu will each run in their own process! Eat THAT Mozilla."
You are allowed to use "existing lines" of stem cells and still get federal funding. Additionally, if federal funding is eschewed in favor of private funding, there is no issue. Finally since the rapture happened on May 21st, there are no more fundamentalist Christians in office to block stem cell funding, so we are all looking forward to some positive policy changes (sorry couldn't resist that one).
This ^. +1.
These are very basic mistakes we are seeing exploited. Its almost as if this is a company that is unaware of basic security practices (they could check out owasp for some hints). What seems more likely is a company that has been hacked, and begun playing the blame game rather than taking even the most rudimentary steps to secure their system. A press release is not an effective server hardening tool, its more of a provocation. So "Its only been a month" doesn't seem like any kind of excuse for a company as large and wealthy as Sony. A company with an apparently cavalier attitude towards sensitive user data.
While it's cruel to kick someone while they're down, when this is over, Sony may end up being one of the most secure web assets on the net.
Is there any evidence to back this up? I keep thinking of counter examples, the best one being Sony. They've been attacked how many times now, and they are still leaving security holes of this nature up? One would think after the first attack a company wide IT effort to harden their servers would have been given something other than the lowest priority...
Gah, I wonder as an American living in America what instances of political censorship on the web I've missed? It would be wonderful if there was a central resource that catalogued, by country, instances of political censorship. Such a tool would be marvelously useful.
Have you considered changing your infrastructure from Visual Studio on a PC to gvim on a Linux box? Also you might benefit from using apache2 and mysql as your text editor.
You are quite right about setting up a domain, it is a slow process fraught with peril. Normally I'd advise hiring a developer to do this for you, but as you can't be too careful, make sure the geek you hire has expert level skills in medieval sword techniques. Since in several US States and some countries asking about ancient weapon skills in an interview is illegal, you can effectively screen for this by asking candidates if they prefer Harry Potter, Enders Game, or Twilight.
PS If you are not already living in the US, considering you are a sentient one person company, you might consider relocating here. We've become the first nation to truly recognize the rights of corporations as people, and you would not be treated like a second class citizen (taxed, held liable for your mistakes). If your website takes off you could even wield massive influence over our electoral process, and how fun does that sound?
+1 the parent. I can see this getting steam as a way to allow business users to add small bits of logic into larger programs. In fact, I've implemented something like this for users before (on a much MUCH smaller scale). For anything complex the ability to maintain visual code would be a nightmare. To say nothing of how much faster one can type than drag objects around a screen. The impact of poor maintainability and workflow on development time would be staggering.
Why the hell is this even legal? Let's outlaw arbitration! I fail to see how a company using arbitration to prevent a rape victim from getting justice is not guilty of being an accomplice to the rape.
I'm interested to hear, what set of rights do you think liberals would take away from you? Conservatives are on record attacking the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to vote (check out their "voter id laws"), gay rights, freedom from religion, etc etc.
Modern Republicans are Modern Conservatives. Modern Democrats are not liberal at all - they are conservative-lite. Both parties are pro corporate, and to a large degree, pro military industrial complex. Thus you have rulings like this one, in which a corporation comes out on top regardless of the consequences or legal justification. Or like citizens united.
If anything, I'd expect Obama to put in some "very sensible" centrists who will continue business as usual. If we had an actual liberal in office making the nominations for SCOTUS (like Russ Feingold) we'd see a change in the stunningly pro-corporate bias of the court.
So I wouldn't call you jaded, just wrong. In the same way much of the media is wrong: enjoying the myth of equivalency when there is none.
+1. My one quibble is that the question cannot be "is the data anonymous" but rather "could it ever be made non anonymous". My concern is even if that very big "if" is overcome and they prove their data is anonymous, could they also show they lack a way to tie a unique identifier to said data.
The last few Ubuntu upgrades have had stability issues. I would love to see a chart comparing the most popular linux distros, with metrics looking at the stability of the platform and benchmarks for common tasks.
If they can somehow verify that the data actually is anonymized, I don't really have a problem with them submitting it to the government. The state departments of transportation need to know how people are actually driving. Getting that data normally takes long, expensive studies, but they do it anyway because it makes people safer: if the average speed on a road is 5 mph over the legal limit, that's probably not a big deal; if it's 30 mph over, then there may well be something wrong with the design of the road (alternatively, the speed limit may just be set too low). If TomTom can help make things less expensive for taxpayers and safer for all drivers, without compromising privacy—I see that as a win.
If they find the speed limit is typically 30mph over for a given highway, they will increase patrols on said highway. In addition to potential safety concerns, speed limits are used as a revenue source - essentially as an under the table tax. Thus providing data of any sort to the police could become more expensive for taxpayers.
The other problem with saying "oh its anonymous so it is ok with me" is how much easier it would be for them to start collecting unique identifiers for cars without explicitly informing the public. Even more likely - a district which has traffic cameras might decide this new source of data ought to serve the same function, and pass a law mandating unique identifiers be passed along to law enforcement. Its quite the slippery slope.
The actual video is about the negative impact of increasing our sugar consumption on a massive scale compared to previous generations.
So if vitamin D was injected into nearly every snack food and soft drink we had, vigorously marketed, and consumed on a larger scale - yeah it would be a problem. You'd have increased incidents of Vitamin D overdose. As it stands right now we have companies adding things like vitamin C and calcium into soft drinks, so it isn't so far fetched an idea.
Clamping down on third party apps alone would make facebook more secure. Require https for apps, and ban predatory apps. There is an app that creates a status message that looks like a standard "hey look at this" link in your feed. When a friend clicks it, it not only brings them to the target link, it automatically publishes that same status on their wall without them having even installed the app. I wonder what else apps can do without explicit user permission? Really, given the increasing frequency of facebook status updates being admitted in court and used by potential employers - that could be quite enough to get you in a heap of trouble.
So I say - keep up the pressure. Either Facebook will get the right idea, or perhaps an ethical congress person (heh, I know) will propose regulation, or perhaps a white hat hacker will expose just how nasty this kind of security hole can be - and the resulting nasty PR will force Facebook's hand. (Accidentally posted this when I wasn't logged in).
I don't think this is the best way to go about that. I think there are far wittier and more effective means to talk about the absurdity of giving religion protective status. This just doesn't seem like an effective ploy in any light, even if their goals (tackle overzealous prosecution of file sharers or make light of religion) are worthwhile.
To protest religion, why not form a new religious group that proposes "Recycling priests who molest": "Why let a holy man go to waste? Waste not, want not my children. Errr, let us rephrase". Or perhaps a religious group that promises sermons "ambiguous enough to enjoy plausible deniability, but angry enough to incite some believers to violence".
To attack file sharing, why not pay private investigators to dig up dirt on those advocating for jailing file sharers (like their closets are empty of skeletons, HAH). Or perhaps working with original content producers to come up with language for a license that keeps the proprietary nature of their work, but promises not to sue individual downloaders? Or form a law firm that announces its entire business model will entail threatening people without the fiscal resources to obtain real representation into paying settlements to avoid a legal battle?
There are more effective means available.
Look I get that companies providing content (or more accurately, managing content distribution) are acting like thugs. I even agree that individual copyright violations for personal use aren't that big a deal. But are we going to go so far as to support something this ridiculous? To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing? Why is the idea of purchasing intellectual property of any sort, from software to movies, "akin to slavery"? Its economic privilege to assume they can just do it "as a hobby" or "contribute to open source". Open source has a place, but so does closed source. Fighting back against individual prosecutions is worthwhile and laudable. Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
You've raised some great points. I think if the end result of the noncompete is the phrase "unemployable", then that noncompete should be blocked on principal.
To consider this from an employer's perspective though - imagine if Rob's requirement was in effect. Think of the impact saving 1 year's salary for every vital employee you hire, so that if they quit (even after a month) you need to pay them to not turn around and go work for your biggest competitor. That seems a bit much! I think if the employee's in a position to help your competitor crush you in the market, a year's head start is a reasonable and small request - only so long as that does not result in said employee becoming unemployable.
I think it depends on the length of the agreement and the impact on the employee.
If the noncompete bars an individual from using his or her current skill set at any job in the industry - that's effectively banishing an employee from employment for the length of the agreement. That should not be allowed.
Another consideration is does the noncompete remain in effect after termination? Because working under the threat of being fired and made unemployable for a year is a hellish thing to contemplate. Here is a hypothetical: "If you don't start working weekends for free, you are fired, and will have to go from making 70k a year to making minimum wage for the duration of our two year noncompete". That's just abusive.
I don't get why your reply is modded so highly. You go off topic with a rant about the TSA, and talk about flying to a protest (what protest? In Japan?) when protests of a global sort tend to happen in the nearest major city to show solidarity.
Using flying in general to assess how effective the average person is at risk analysis is a poor choice. People sometimes need to fly for business - as in its their job and in this economy they can't just up and quit. Of those choosing not to fly, sure some do so out of paranoia about getting scanned, but some (like myself) don't like being treated like criminals and getting felt up by officials for the privilege of getting somewhere faster.
I have to agree with the parent comment, I've seen a real rush to downplay the effects of the radiation in Japan. Your points amount to a strawman attack.
Is it being treated with the same rigor as an investment? What is the projected rate of return? Given the already low tax rate corporations in the UK enjoy, how will further cuts impact that rate of return? Is it certain the tax cuts are necessary?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean by acknowledging the risk? I don't get why slashdot's audience tends to skew towards "radiation is good" fanboyism. Radiation poisoning is cumulative. And as our society continues to add exposure here, exposure there... it adds up. And maybe that means we are accepting a 10% higher rate of incidence, or maybe that number is even higher. The only fear I see is fear of contradicting the notably greedy mobile phone industry. Which seems odd, given how often there is an article on slashdot justifiably trashing AT&T or Verizon, that slashdot readers are so quick to rush to their defense in the face of cell phone radiation being potentially carcinogenic.
Neither Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" (away) nor Chalmer's various "zomg zombie" arguments, however compelling, seem to get us any closer to understanding what consciousness is. Applying Quantum theory is almost adorable... like physicists want their very own god of the gaps.
1. Something not yet explained (what the hell IS consciousness itself?)
2. Add something mysterious with a dash of causal perfume
3. ???
4. Profit.
Maybe someday we will figure out a way to figure out what consciousness itself is, but we are not close to that day yet.
An anonymous Firefox dev has suggested adding a futuristic "TaskBar" to replace to old fashioned URL Bar. "Imagine, it could house a menu, tabs, perhaps widgets like a clock or volume control... ". This new bar might be moved to the bottom of the screen to maximize usability. "We ran extensive user tests - selecting our users randomly from a large pool of Gnome 3 enthusiasts and Unity developers alike".
When reached for comment, reps from competing browsers had this to say:
IE: "Hawt."
Safari: "Who needs any sort of bar? You should be able to control your browser simply by caressing the screen with predefined strokes."
Chrome: "Oh yeah? In our next version the TaskBar and Menu will each run in their own process! Eat THAT Mozilla."
Nothing to see here, Hugh Pickens is just extremely notable and well sourced.
You are allowed to use "existing lines" of stem cells and still get federal funding. Additionally, if federal funding is eschewed in favor of private funding, there is no issue. Finally since the rapture happened on May 21st, there are no more fundamentalist Christians in office to block stem cell funding, so we are all looking forward to some positive policy changes (sorry couldn't resist that one).
This ^. +1. These are very basic mistakes we are seeing exploited. Its almost as if this is a company that is unaware of basic security practices (they could check out owasp for some hints). What seems more likely is a company that has been hacked, and begun playing the blame game rather than taking even the most rudimentary steps to secure their system. A press release is not an effective server hardening tool, its more of a provocation. So "Its only been a month" doesn't seem like any kind of excuse for a company as large and wealthy as Sony. A company with an apparently cavalier attitude towards sensitive user data.
Is there any evidence to back this up? I keep thinking of counter examples, the best one being Sony. They've been attacked how many times now, and they are still leaving security holes of this nature up? One would think after the first attack a company wide IT effort to harden their servers would have been given something other than the lowest priority...
Gah, I wonder as an American living in America what instances of political censorship on the web I've missed? It would be wonderful if there was a central resource that catalogued, by country, instances of political censorship. Such a tool would be marvelously useful.
Have you considered changing your infrastructure from Visual Studio on a PC to gvim on a Linux box? Also you might benefit from using apache2 and mysql as your text editor. You are quite right about setting up a domain, it is a slow process fraught with peril. Normally I'd advise hiring a developer to do this for you, but as you can't be too careful, make sure the geek you hire has expert level skills in medieval sword techniques. Since in several US States and some countries asking about ancient weapon skills in an interview is illegal, you can effectively screen for this by asking candidates if they prefer Harry Potter, Enders Game, or Twilight. PS If you are not already living in the US, considering you are a sentient one person company, you might consider relocating here. We've become the first nation to truly recognize the rights of corporations as people, and you would not be treated like a second class citizen (taxed, held liable for your mistakes). If your website takes off you could even wield massive influence over our electoral process, and how fun does that sound?
+1 the parent. I can see this getting steam as a way to allow business users to add small bits of logic into larger programs. In fact, I've implemented something like this for users before (on a much MUCH smaller scale). For anything complex the ability to maintain visual code would be a nightmare. To say nothing of how much faster one can type than drag objects around a screen. The impact of poor maintainability and workflow on development time would be staggering.
We've made progress by fighting back, I rather hope that's the wisest course of action (vs just sitting by and taking it).
Why the hell is this even legal? Let's outlaw arbitration! I fail to see how a company using arbitration to prevent a rape victim from getting justice is not guilty of being an accomplice to the rape.
I'm interested to hear, what set of rights do you think liberals would take away from you? Conservatives are on record attacking the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to vote (check out their "voter id laws"), gay rights, freedom from religion, etc etc.
Modern Republicans are Modern Conservatives. Modern Democrats are not liberal at all - they are conservative-lite. Both parties are pro corporate, and to a large degree, pro military industrial complex. Thus you have rulings like this one, in which a corporation comes out on top regardless of the consequences or legal justification. Or like citizens united.
If anything, I'd expect Obama to put in some "very sensible" centrists who will continue business as usual. If we had an actual liberal in office making the nominations for SCOTUS (like Russ Feingold) we'd see a change in the stunningly pro-corporate bias of the court.
So I wouldn't call you jaded, just wrong. In the same way much of the media is wrong: enjoying the myth of equivalency when there is none.
+1. My one quibble is that the question cannot be "is the data anonymous" but rather "could it ever be made non anonymous". My concern is even if that very big "if" is overcome and they prove their data is anonymous, could they also show they lack a way to tie a unique identifier to said data.
The last few Ubuntu upgrades have had stability issues. I would love to see a chart comparing the most popular linux distros, with metrics looking at the stability of the platform and benchmarks for common tasks.
If they can somehow verify that the data actually is anonymized, I don't really have a problem with them submitting it to the government. The state departments of transportation need to know how people are actually driving. Getting that data normally takes long, expensive studies, but they do it anyway because it makes people safer: if the average speed on a road is 5 mph over the legal limit, that's probably not a big deal; if it's 30 mph over, then there may well be something wrong with the design of the road (alternatively, the speed limit may just be set too low). If TomTom can help make things less expensive for taxpayers and safer for all drivers, without compromising privacy—I see that as a win.
If they find the speed limit is typically 30mph over for a given highway, they will increase patrols on said highway. In addition to potential safety concerns, speed limits are used as a revenue source - essentially as an under the table tax. Thus providing data of any sort to the police could become more expensive for taxpayers.
The other problem with saying "oh its anonymous so it is ok with me" is how much easier it would be for them to start collecting unique identifiers for cars without explicitly informing the public. Even more likely - a district which has traffic cameras might decide this new source of data ought to serve the same function, and pass a law mandating unique identifiers be passed along to law enforcement. Its quite the slippery slope.
The actual video is about the negative impact of increasing our sugar consumption on a massive scale compared to previous generations. So if vitamin D was injected into nearly every snack food and soft drink we had, vigorously marketed, and consumed on a larger scale - yeah it would be a problem. You'd have increased incidents of Vitamin D overdose. As it stands right now we have companies adding things like vitamin C and calcium into soft drinks, so it isn't so far fetched an idea.
Clamping down on third party apps alone would make facebook more secure. Require https for apps, and ban predatory apps. There is an app that creates a status message that looks like a standard "hey look at this" link in your feed. When a friend clicks it, it not only brings them to the target link, it automatically publishes that same status on their wall without them having even installed the app. I wonder what else apps can do without explicit user permission? Really, given the increasing frequency of facebook status updates being admitted in court and used by potential employers - that could be quite enough to get you in a heap of trouble. So I say - keep up the pressure. Either Facebook will get the right idea, or perhaps an ethical congress person (heh, I know) will propose regulation, or perhaps a white hat hacker will expose just how nasty this kind of security hole can be - and the resulting nasty PR will force Facebook's hand. (Accidentally posted this when I wasn't logged in).
I don't think this is the best way to go about that. I think there are far wittier and more effective means to talk about the absurdity of giving religion protective status. This just doesn't seem like an effective ploy in any light, even if their goals (tackle overzealous prosecution of file sharers or make light of religion) are worthwhile. To protest religion, why not form a new religious group that proposes "Recycling priests who molest": "Why let a holy man go to waste? Waste not, want not my children. Errr, let us rephrase". Or perhaps a religious group that promises sermons "ambiguous enough to enjoy plausible deniability, but angry enough to incite some believers to violence". To attack file sharing, why not pay private investigators to dig up dirt on those advocating for jailing file sharers (like their closets are empty of skeletons, HAH). Or perhaps working with original content producers to come up with language for a license that keeps the proprietary nature of their work, but promises not to sue individual downloaders? Or form a law firm that announces its entire business model will entail threatening people without the fiscal resources to obtain real representation into paying settlements to avoid a legal battle? There are more effective means available.
I agree, mod parent up.
Look I get that companies providing content (or more accurately, managing content distribution) are acting like thugs. I even agree that individual copyright violations for personal use aren't that big a deal. But are we going to go so far as to support something this ridiculous? To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing? Why is the idea of purchasing intellectual property of any sort, from software to movies, "akin to slavery"? Its economic privilege to assume they can just do it "as a hobby" or "contribute to open source". Open source has a place, but so does closed source. Fighting back against individual prosecutions is worthwhile and laudable. Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
You've raised some great points. I think if the end result of the noncompete is the phrase "unemployable", then that noncompete should be blocked on principal. To consider this from an employer's perspective though - imagine if Rob's requirement was in effect. Think of the impact saving 1 year's salary for every vital employee you hire, so that if they quit (even after a month) you need to pay them to not turn around and go work for your biggest competitor. That seems a bit much! I think if the employee's in a position to help your competitor crush you in the market, a year's head start is a reasonable and small request - only so long as that does not result in said employee becoming unemployable.
I think it depends on the length of the agreement and the impact on the employee. If the noncompete bars an individual from using his or her current skill set at any job in the industry - that's effectively banishing an employee from employment for the length of the agreement. That should not be allowed. Another consideration is does the noncompete remain in effect after termination? Because working under the threat of being fired and made unemployable for a year is a hellish thing to contemplate. Here is a hypothetical: "If you don't start working weekends for free, you are fired, and will have to go from making 70k a year to making minimum wage for the duration of our two year noncompete". That's just abusive.
I don't get why your reply is modded so highly. You go off topic with a rant about the TSA, and talk about flying to a protest (what protest? In Japan?) when protests of a global sort tend to happen in the nearest major city to show solidarity. Using flying in general to assess how effective the average person is at risk analysis is a poor choice. People sometimes need to fly for business - as in its their job and in this economy they can't just up and quit. Of those choosing not to fly, sure some do so out of paranoia about getting scanned, but some (like myself) don't like being treated like criminals and getting felt up by officials for the privilege of getting somewhere faster. I have to agree with the parent comment, I've seen a real rush to downplay the effects of the radiation in Japan. Your points amount to a strawman attack.
Is it being treated with the same rigor as an investment? What is the projected rate of return? Given the already low tax rate corporations in the UK enjoy, how will further cuts impact that rate of return? Is it certain the tax cuts are necessary?