HR Is full of the prom queens and football captains who everyone loves but who have no idea what they're doing at actual work, so you put them in HR, so they have a career but never actually touch a customer project.
If you were to think of it from the other direction. Construct a list of (website) businesses not allowed to do business in israel, what would they be?
Illegal gambling (that may be all gambling, that may be gambling not under a state monopoly, I'm not sure).
Illegal weapons sales
People smuggling
Terrorism
Hostile state propaganda (Iranian news).
Child pornographers.
Etc.
They're aren't on the list because they're equivalent crimes, they're on the list because the government only has the authority to take the *one* action against them if they're based outside of the country: Ban them from domestic websites. And even that is of dubious capability.
Now the thing is, the Israeli government may not have a great problem with people smuggling, they may actually want people to see what the Iranian press is saying, they may have more effective border control on arms sales than blocking websites (since those are going to the palestinians who theoretically have their own internet anyway) and so on.
But Illegal gambling, child porn, they're both illegal. And the Israeli state can't do anything about them if it's hosted outside israel. And the Israeli user action is the problem (giving money to an unlicensed betting firm, acquiring/distributing child porn, or downloading copyrighted works without license), a casino in the US that takes israeli money is behaving legally for them, etc.
I hate to say this but they are all nothing alike
well as I say, they are, in how you access them and who is responsible for doing so.
and the reasons for blocking each individualy differ quite a bit.
Blocked is blocked, why is for the law to sort out itself.
To make it secret is even worse. Why don't you do the internet a service and educate people about these issues directly.
Creating a list of places to go for illegal activity would seem counter productive. Especially since this would be basically a list for people in other countries to use as go to place for sources.
I suppose you will take down WALL STREET's webs since their all about gambling.
If israeli citizens are not allowed to invest on the NYSE then... sure it should be blocked if there's no public benefit to being able to see it (not taken down, wall street is operating legally within the US, that's the problem, the Israelis can't shut down a legally operating monaco gambling site but they can block access to it).
Well, the second time. The first time you fought a civil war over it, and then 100 years later *still* had to send in the army to get to the drinking fountains. So it didn't work very well.
Indeed, and so perhaps we should go with what works, rather than charging in guns blazing. Clearly the UN did not bribe the right people, and clearly the US should avoid trying to use vaccinations as intelligence gathering tools.
I'm ambivalent on whether it would be moral to nuke this disease out of existence. Nuking this disease would easily help more people than it would hurt, even if it does hurt millions.
Considering there are 200 million people in pakistan, and they have nukes, and there are only a few thousand cases of polio a year... your solution seems... cowboyish.
Most children in the west aren't vaccinated against Polio
It's still part of routine vaccinations in the US, canada, china, japan etc. AFAIK. I know for sure you can't go to school here in ontario without polio vaccinations because my cousins children have a mother who thinks vaccines cause autism and was trying to not vaccinate them.
The chaos kills a lot of pakistani's, don't be under any illusion, they are in the midst of a war they don't really want to fight. And for the moment they're trying to not make it worse.
I actually made comparison for that reason specifically.
Is it worth starting a war over, or can you get what you want some other way? If the south had revolted against the army being used as an escort it would have been a big fight. The tribal areas in pakistan *are* fighting a war with the government already, this would just make it worse.
As I say, it will have to come to it eventually when the central government in pakistan wants control over their whole country (just like the US civil war!). Until then, it's better to try and stay out of the way and let the UN negotiate with the tribal chiefs independently.
What Pakistan should be doing is giving the workers armed escorts.
That would be like sending in the army to end racism in the south so that you can hand out bottled water.
The civilized areas of pakistan don't particularly need the UN to go in an help people, they have hospitals and roads and all that stuff already. Yes, there are poor people who need help being vaccinated, but they in karachi for example this a detail management problem, and they in a broad sense need money.
In the tribal areas the pakistani central government is not welcome. At all. They've been basically in an uneasy soft war with the tribal areas since even the 1860's when it was all nominally british. The UN has, thus far, been able to go in, on its own, with the protection of being the UN, and do all of these things because people have been convinced (and convinced the tribal elders, even with bribes) that the UN guys are actually seriously trying to do good thing. If you send in the army you're starting a war about who is in control of the tribal areas. And quite frankly the central government doesn't care that much. Eventually yes, it may come to that, but right now the central government in pakistan has its own problems, and they'd rather stay out of the tribal areas. What they don't want, frankly what no one wants, is polio to spread from the tribal areas to the rest of pakistan or india.
Why would they lose their science credibility? Productive applications of scientific ideas should be the primary basis for science credibility not hiding in an ivory tower.
Because being a quant is basically intellectual fraud. I could construct a derivative to trade of a hash function of the characters in your post, it would have no actual meaning.
Nor does being a quant have anything to do with actually doing science defensible published in journals. There is a strong case that academia is *too* focused on journals, and industry publications (like IBM technical papers, or programming guides, and other technical documents for big tech companies are not counted as 'publications' when trying to go into academia).
Hence I threw in Germany and the UK in there. The US is 20% german, 18% british by descent, and both of those countries have since become quite ethnically diverse.
And part of my point was that those countries, despite having much higher violent crime rates still have much lower murder rates.
Southern europe, northern europe (rejecting the baltics) ~1.5-2.
(note: Lichenstein, luxembourg and monaco are bad data point, the first and last are 'countries' of 35k people, and 2010 was a particularly bad murder rate for luxembourg with 12, their 6 year average previous was 5.5).
And in our lifetime we will see a dramatic reduction in car deaths as we see self driving cars, and every vehicle having a mandatory ignition Breathalyzer lock.
It's not like this isn't a problem people are working on as well.
And by the way, there *is* a body responsible for finding what is wrong with cars, and getting it fixed, as with aircraft.
Switzerlands statistic is misleading. They don't have an army, they have a citizen militia, so all of their army guns (which are regularly inspected) are considered 'private', unlike every other country.
My lingering suspicion is that looking at the 'loose' guns per capita is the right statistic. Eliminate (from the data) all of the guns for the army, collectors, farmers, etc. etc. etc. All of the places that are well regulated in lots of places, and you'd see the effect of 'loose' guns on crime. But of course, things like police that don't do their job is a major factor in a lot of places too.
Or did Japan used to have a high murder rate until they took away the guns?
They, along with the UK and Japan, prohibited guns many decades ago. In the case of the UK and germany you're going back 50-100 years, in the case of Japan you're going back to the Boshin war 150 years ago.
There have been incremental gun control changes since then, but they are, on the whole minor adjustments to what is basically a prohibition of personal handguns and guns in general. The problem there becomes one of 'if you reduce the murder rate from 0.5 to 0.4 you've made a 20% reduction, but compared to the US at between 8 and 4 it's hard to see that difference'.
There is almost certainly a lag effect on banning guns and seeing the effect too. When europe and japan did it guns were a lot less reliable than they are now. Even a ban tomorrow on guns and you'd still be seeing murders from guns made today in the 2050's likely.
Actually I made reference to the UK and germany because even though they have much higher violent crime rates, they have lower murder rates. The UK murders per violent crime rate is 1/16th the US rate. If the US has the same murders per violent crime rate as the UK it would have only marginally more murders than japan. The US by the way does not have a particularly low violent crime rate. The UK in particular, and German generally have very high violent crime rates. Admittedly, some of that is football hooliganism, but that doesn't account for a factor of 4 difference alone.
Getting rid of guns isn't going to get rid of violent crime. Getting rid of guns (which is a process that will take decades even if started tomorrow) is going to reduce the rate of murder, and in particular the murders per violent crime.
What evidence is there that the EU and Japan have less people who would be serial killers if given the chance?
Broadly speaking I think the public understands there's a role for a TSA. They just think the TSA as implemented actually does that on top of all of the stupid things they do, rather than being almost exclusive a collection of stupid things.
You would probably be charged with a federal crime for threatening a federal employee.
As Tlhlngan says, it would just further the selection pressure to bad people. It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore. And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manager titles with pride, oblivious to how stupid they look to anyone with a brain.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low. Even if you look at say, germany and the UK, who have much higher violent crime rates than the US, their murder rate is much lower.
There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc. It's not that there shouldn't be a TSA, it's that the TSA as implemented is unlikely to efficiently accomplish any of the broad goals it has.
You're right that stopping the occasional mass shooting is extremely hard. That's actually the wrong target for the US, the real target for the US should be handguns and work from there. Despite the occasional mass shooting the US averages about 40 murders a day, whereas the equivalent rate in the EU would be more like 10.
when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff!
And some per-pubescent perverts too likely. The thing is, a convicted child rapist isn't any more obviously a threat than anyone else in goldshire. You have literally no idea who you're talking to in WoW, and you should know enough to not disclose anything without a LOT of forethought. I know several people who have met spouses in WoW, so that's certainly possible too, but you can't tell a 'soon to be' sex offender from an actual sex offender.
The problem with say, trying to block anyone who's a pervert from online games is you'd end up blocking a lot of people who are consenting adults role playing as elves. Which... might actually be a good thing come to think of it. Ok, probably not. But you get the idea.
The law is overzealous. But don't tempt fate just because the law is stupid. You personally should make decisions in your own best interest. Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.
You should have been asking those questions before you donated.
Except there aren't answers. Whatever kickstarters EULA states hasn't been tested in court. Kickstarter is new, and some of these questions aren't well addressed in modern law, nor is it clear if politicians will jump onto kickstarter and write new laws. That's where it all becomes tricky.
>And therein lies the rub. They're not investors. At the very most they're sponsors or supporters.
Perhaps, but they have been given some sort of dubious sort of maybe kind of pre-order like thing.
>If TFS and TFA are anything to go by, it evidently is. *Shocked* even. WOW, the project is late!!! Call the fucking cops! News at 11.
That's not the tone I read from it. That projects slip isn't a surprise, the information here is that between 75 and 85% of the best funded projects don't meet deadlines, although many of them only run a couple of months behind, which is not, on the scale of things, a huge problem. The rest of them though, that are running very late... that's an issue.
The issue with kickstarter becomes one of the relationship between the 'investor' (who isn't actually an investor) and the producer. When you invest in my company we have a business relationship, the scope of the project expands and you give me more money, well, the relationship has changed. With kickstarter... harder to say.
If you contract my company to do something, and I fail to deliver on time (or on budget or the like) there are legal contractual issues that can be fought over. With kickstarter... not so much. What if a project decides to change a reward tier after the fact. Sorry, but I know you gave 10 grand to our game and we promised to fly you out to meet us, but uh... we're not doing that.
It's not a shock to anyone that projects don't make deadlines. But it raises a lot of questions about the nature of kickstarter funding. What if the project gets half done and they need more money so they go to a bank and can no longer keep all of their past kickstarter reward commitments? Can they even do that? If they just shut down you're obviously not getting anything. That's a given. But the huge in between space from 'on budget and on time' to 'not on time and not on budget' is going to get tricky.
Even if you have a small calculation failure rate, it's not practical for an end user to recognize that as a hardware partial failure rather rather than a software bug.
From the perspective of the average user, yes, it either works or it doesn't. If you use something bit (like wow/guildwars or the like) and they can diagnose it for you then you might have an argument. But even then, 1% could be overclocking or, as the author of TFA says, heat or PSU undersupply issues. That's not 'defective' hardware, that's temperamental hardware or the user doing it wrong. And because it's rare it's not necessarily serious, most users can handle the odd application crash in something like an MMO once every few days.
It does mean a bug hunter needs to know what is happening though.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
HR Is full of the prom queens and football captains who everyone loves but who have no idea what they're doing at actual work, so you put them in HR, so they have a career but never actually touch a customer project.
If you were to think of it from the other direction. Construct a list of (website) businesses not allowed to do business in israel, what would they be?
Illegal gambling (that may be all gambling, that may be gambling not under a state monopoly, I'm not sure).
Illegal weapons sales
People smuggling
Terrorism
Hostile state propaganda (Iranian news).
Child pornographers.
Etc.
They're aren't on the list because they're equivalent crimes, they're on the list because the government only has the authority to take the *one* action against them if they're based outside of the country: Ban them from domestic websites. And even that is of dubious capability.
Now the thing is, the Israeli government may not have a great problem with people smuggling, they may actually want people to see what the Iranian press is saying, they may have more effective border control on arms sales than blocking websites (since those are going to the palestinians who theoretically have their own internet anyway) and so on.
But Illegal gambling, child porn, they're both illegal. And the Israeli state can't do anything about them if it's hosted outside israel. And the Israeli user action is the problem (giving money to an unlicensed betting firm, acquiring/distributing child porn, or downloading copyrighted works without license), a casino in the US that takes israeli money is behaving legally for them, etc.
I hate to say this but they are all nothing alike
well as I say, they are, in how you access them and who is responsible for doing so.
and the reasons for blocking each individualy differ quite a bit.
Blocked is blocked, why is for the law to sort out itself.
To make it secret is even worse. Why don't you do the internet a service and educate people about these issues directly.
Creating a list of places to go for illegal activity would seem counter productive. Especially since this would be basically a list for people in other countries to use as go to place for sources.
I suppose you will take down WALL STREET's webs since their all about gambling.
If israeli citizens are not allowed to invest on the NYSE then... sure it should be blocked if there's no public benefit to being able to see it (not taken down, wall street is operating legally within the US, that's the problem, the Israelis can't shut down a legally operating monaco gambling site but they can block access to it).
Well, the second time. The first time you fought a civil war over it, and then 100 years later *still* had to send in the army to get to the drinking fountains. So it didn't work very well.
Because they have always been there and in charge, and those swathes of the country are mostly worthless.
Those are the stakes.
Indeed, and so perhaps we should go with what works, rather than charging in guns blazing. Clearly the UN did not bribe the right people, and clearly the US should avoid trying to use vaccinations as intelligence gathering tools.
I'm ambivalent on whether it would be moral to nuke this disease out of existence. Nuking this disease would easily help more people than it would hurt, even if it does hurt millions.
Considering there are 200 million people in pakistan, and they have nukes, and there are only a few thousand cases of polio a year... your solution seems... cowboyish.
Most children in the west aren't vaccinated against Polio
It's still part of routine vaccinations in the US, canada, china, japan etc. AFAIK. I know for sure you can't go to school here in ontario without polio vaccinations because my cousins children have a mother who thinks vaccines cause autism and was trying to not vaccinate them.
I never said helpless. I said not interested.
The chaos kills a lot of pakistani's, don't be under any illusion, they are in the midst of a war they don't really want to fight. And for the moment they're trying to not make it worse.
I actually made comparison for that reason specifically.
Is it worth starting a war over, or can you get what you want some other way? If the south had revolted against the army being used as an escort it would have been a big fight. The tribal areas in pakistan *are* fighting a war with the government already, this would just make it worse.
As I say, it will have to come to it eventually when the central government in pakistan wants control over their whole country (just like the US civil war!). Until then, it's better to try and stay out of the way and let the UN negotiate with the tribal chiefs independently.
No, the problem is that they're trying to compete with windows 8.
The best way to compete with windows 8 is let people try it.
What Pakistan should be doing is giving the workers armed escorts.
That would be like sending in the army to end racism in the south so that you can hand out bottled water.
The civilized areas of pakistan don't particularly need the UN to go in an help people, they have hospitals and roads and all that stuff already. Yes, there are poor people who need help being vaccinated, but they in karachi for example this a detail management problem, and they in a broad sense need money.
In the tribal areas the pakistani central government is not welcome. At all. They've been basically in an uneasy soft war with the tribal areas since even the 1860's when it was all nominally british. The UN has, thus far, been able to go in, on its own, with the protection of being the UN, and do all of these things because people have been convinced (and convinced the tribal elders, even with bribes) that the UN guys are actually seriously trying to do good thing. If you send in the army you're starting a war about who is in control of the tribal areas. And quite frankly the central government doesn't care that much. Eventually yes, it may come to that, but right now the central government in pakistan has its own problems, and they'd rather stay out of the tribal areas. What they don't want, frankly what no one wants, is polio to spread from the tribal areas to the rest of pakistan or india.
Why would they lose their science credibility? Productive applications of scientific ideas should be the primary basis for science credibility not hiding in an ivory tower.
Because being a quant is basically intellectual fraud. I could construct a derivative to trade of a hash function of the characters in your post, it would have no actual meaning.
Nor does being a quant have anything to do with actually doing science defensible published in journals. There is a strong case that academia is *too* focused on journals, and industry publications (like IBM technical papers, or programming guides, and other technical documents for big tech companies are not counted as 'publications' when trying to go into academia).
Hence I threw in Germany and the UK in there. The US is 20% german, 18% british by descent, and both of those countries have since become quite ethnically diverse.
And part of my point was that those countries, despite having much higher violent crime rates still have much lower murder rates.
US murder rate is 4.2. The western european average is about 1.0. Canada 1.6. All stats/100k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Southern europe, northern europe (rejecting the baltics) ~1.5-2.
(note: Lichenstein, luxembourg and monaco are bad data point, the first and last are 'countries' of 35k people, and 2010 was a particularly bad murder rate for luxembourg with 12, their 6 year average previous was 5.5).
but the rest of us know how dangerous cars are.
And in our lifetime we will see a dramatic reduction in car deaths as we see self driving cars, and every vehicle having a mandatory ignition Breathalyzer lock.
It's not like this isn't a problem people are working on as well.
And by the way, there *is* a body responsible for finding what is wrong with cars, and getting it fixed, as with aircraft.
Switzerlands statistic is misleading. They don't have an army, they have a citizen militia, so all of their army guns (which are regularly inspected) are considered 'private', unlike every other country.
My lingering suspicion is that looking at the 'loose' guns per capita is the right statistic. Eliminate (from the data) all of the guns for the army, collectors, farmers, etc. etc. etc. All of the places that are well regulated in lots of places, and you'd see the effect of 'loose' guns on crime. But of course, things like police that don't do their job is a major factor in a lot of places too.
Or did Japan used to have a high murder rate until they took away the guns?
They, along with the UK and Japan, prohibited guns many decades ago. In the case of the UK and germany you're going back 50-100 years, in the case of Japan you're going back to the Boshin war 150 years ago.
There have been incremental gun control changes since then, but they are, on the whole minor adjustments to what is basically a prohibition of personal handguns and guns in general. The problem there becomes one of 'if you reduce the murder rate from 0.5 to 0.4 you've made a 20% reduction, but compared to the US at between 8 and 4 it's hard to see that difference'.
There is almost certainly a lag effect on banning guns and seeing the effect too. When europe and japan did it guns were a lot less reliable than they are now. Even a ban tomorrow on guns and you'd still be seeing murders from guns made today in the 2050's likely.
Actually I made reference to the UK and germany because even though they have much higher violent crime rates, they have lower murder rates. The UK murders per violent crime rate is 1/16th the US rate. If the US has the same murders per violent crime rate as the UK it would have only marginally more murders than japan. The US by the way does not have a particularly low violent crime rate. The UK in particular, and German generally have very high violent crime rates. Admittedly, some of that is football hooliganism, but that doesn't account for a factor of 4 difference alone.
Getting rid of guns isn't going to get rid of violent crime. Getting rid of guns (which is a process that will take decades even if started tomorrow) is going to reduce the rate of murder, and in particular the murders per violent crime.
What evidence is there that the EU and Japan have less people who would be serial killers if given the chance?
Broadly speaking I think the public understands there's a role for a TSA. They just think the TSA as implemented actually does that on top of all of the stupid things they do, rather than being almost exclusive a collection of stupid things.
You would probably be charged with a federal crime for threatening a federal employee.
As Tlhlngan says, it would just further the selection pressure to bad people. It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore. And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manager titles with pride, oblivious to how stupid they look to anyone with a brain.
Because the evidence, say, from Japan, that an almost complete prohibition of firearms will make the murder rate very low. Even if you look at say, germany and the UK, who have much higher violent crime rates than the US, their murder rate is much lower.
There should be a TSA, it should try and prevent dangerous shit from getting on aircraft, trains, airports etc. It's not that there shouldn't be a TSA, it's that the TSA as implemented is unlikely to efficiently accomplish any of the broad goals it has.
You're right that stopping the occasional mass shooting is extremely hard. That's actually the wrong target for the US, the real target for the US should be handguns and work from there. Despite the occasional mass shooting the US averages about 40 murders a day, whereas the equivalent rate in the EU would be more like 10.
when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff!
And some per-pubescent perverts too likely. The thing is, a convicted child rapist isn't any more obviously a threat than anyone else in goldshire. You have literally no idea who you're talking to in WoW, and you should know enough to not disclose anything without a LOT of forethought. I know several people who have met spouses in WoW, so that's certainly possible too, but you can't tell a 'soon to be' sex offender from an actual sex offender.
The problem with say, trying to block anyone who's a pervert from online games is you'd end up blocking a lot of people who are consenting adults role playing as elves. Which... might actually be a good thing come to think of it. Ok, probably not. But you get the idea.
separate problems.
The law is overzealous. But don't tempt fate just because the law is stupid. You personally should make decisions in your own best interest. Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.
You should have been asking those questions before you donated.
Except there aren't answers. Whatever kickstarters EULA states hasn't been tested in court. Kickstarter is new, and some of these questions aren't well addressed in modern law, nor is it clear if politicians will jump onto kickstarter and write new laws. That's where it all becomes tricky.
>And therein lies the rub. They're not investors. At the very most they're sponsors or supporters.
Perhaps, but they have been given some sort of dubious sort of maybe kind of pre-order like thing.
>If TFS and TFA are anything to go by, it evidently is. *Shocked* even. WOW, the project is late!!! Call the fucking cops! News at 11.
That's not the tone I read from it. That projects slip isn't a surprise, the information here is that between 75 and 85% of the best funded projects don't meet deadlines, although many of them only run a couple of months behind, which is not, on the scale of things, a huge problem. The rest of them though, that are running very late... that's an issue.
The issue with kickstarter becomes one of the relationship between the 'investor' (who isn't actually an investor) and the producer. When you invest in my company we have a business relationship, the scope of the project expands and you give me more money, well, the relationship has changed. With kickstarter... harder to say.
If you contract my company to do something, and I fail to deliver on time (or on budget or the like) there are legal contractual issues that can be fought over. With kickstarter... not so much. What if a project decides to change a reward tier after the fact. Sorry, but I know you gave 10 grand to our game and we promised to fly you out to meet us, but uh... we're not doing that.
It's not a shock to anyone that projects don't make deadlines. But it raises a lot of questions about the nature of kickstarter funding. What if the project gets half done and they need more money so they go to a bank and can no longer keep all of their past kickstarter reward commitments? Can they even do that? If they just shut down you're obviously not getting anything. That's a given. But the huge in between space from 'on budget and on time' to 'not on time and not on budget' is going to get tricky.
Even if you have a small calculation failure rate, it's not practical for an end user to recognize that as a hardware partial failure rather rather than a software bug.
From the perspective of the average user, yes, it either works or it doesn't. If you use something bit (like wow/guildwars or the like) and they can diagnose it for you then you might have an argument. But even then, 1% could be overclocking or, as the author of TFA says, heat or PSU undersupply issues. That's not 'defective' hardware, that's temperamental hardware or the user doing it wrong. And because it's rare it's not necessarily serious, most users can handle the odd application crash in something like an MMO once every few days.
It does mean a bug hunter needs to know what is happening though.