Guy claiming to be from the DHS said that rumor in the department was that malware had been accidentally installed by some dipshit user on a workstation.
That means it isn't chinese hackers or false flags so much as government incompetence being covered up with finger pointing.
aka usual administrative ass covering.
Never label something as malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.
A better question is why you let people in OPM install executable code on workstations?
We've had white listing security information security systems for ages that are administrated by the sysop.
He designates the code that is permitted to run on specific machines by specific users and anything that isn't that code is not authorized to run.
Which means if some jackass tries to run an angry birds EXE on your system or whatever... it won't run. And depending on your security policies, the mere attempt can create a security flag with the system administrator.
So... why is that not in place when its totally easy to implient as of now?
And beyond that, I'm guessing your workstations are not terminals slaved to a terminal server? The virtue of the terminal is that all workstations operate off a standard system template that is reflreshed after every logout. The only things that are stored between login/logout are things in the file servers and the databases. Control of viruses, malware, or just bullshit programs is very easily tracked and controlled. Also any problem with the machines is a lot easier because the physical workstations are dumb terminals that can be junked for practically nothing and replaced... plug and play. And there's no need to install a new operating system or programs on the new system because all of it is on the terminal server.
Just saying. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a dick here. But whomever manages security in these departments needs to kneed hard enough in the groin that it causes an improvement in their priorities.
If you're saying this was caused by some dipshit user installing malware on a workstation that actually reflects very badly on the system design. Not the dipshit employee.
Firing the dipshit employee won't fix the problem. The problem is that any dipshit employee can install malware on your systems.
First the commander and chief is the US President. He is also the head diplomat, the leader of the country, has enourmous control over the banking system, can dictate a great deal of policy to the legislature, has enourmous regulatory power, and yes... is also in utlimate command of the US military.
To qualify for all these positions, he'd have to be a general, a legislator, a legal expert, a financial expert, etc.
A CEO for example of a large corporation does not need to be an expert in every thing the company does because he delegates technical things to specializes below him in the chain of command. The president is the same way.
So no, your point about the president is not a flaw in my argument.
So no response to my line by line proof that I was actually right and he was supporting my position?
No response to the fact that I wasn't lying and in fact you were just clueless because you either didn't read or worse didn't understand what you read?
Come on. You've made some bold claims there, junior. And I'd love to see you back fucking one of them up.
Do you know why you lose? Because all you care about is winning.
And because all you care about is winning, you fail to see that the easiest way to win is to be right.
I don't try to win. I try to be right.
The distinction is that you like to play rhetorical games to create IMPRESSION of being right. Where as I will actually change my position to fit the facts. So when push comes to shove... my feet are firmly planted able to bear the strain. Where as you fucking fall over in a heap.
Did you have anything specific you wanted to cite as being untrue or are you too afraid to engage in a real discussion where your baseless insults can be shredded for the moronic drek they are?
Grow a pair you spineless AC shitstain. Try to sustain an argument against me in anything but a cowardly one off comment followed by you running away with your tail between your legs.
No isn't. The concept has existed at least since Diogenes. And it isn't going away. It will ebb and wane when the sophists grow strong but they'll always take their bullshit too far which will cause a die off at the hands of the cynics and stoics.
This has been going on for thousands of years. All these people are doing is winding a spring. They push it too far and the cynics and stoics will eat them alive.
We can already see it starting again. The sophists are currently in denial about what is coming but that's fine. The stoics etc are not interested in making the sophists happy.
I've seen a few academics openly argue in favor of sophistry. As if it is this poorly understood and much maligned philosophy or code of conduct.
And that's always a signal that the spring is getting really close to going PING.
Its like hearing people say "the market will never go down again" or "the market will never go up again its the end of the world"... both of which ironically tend to presage as move in the opposite direction.
The sophists are running wild. From what I can see, everyone knows it. They don't think about it in those terms... and instead see it in terms of ethical violations or lax ethical codes or propensity for people to do things on false pretenses. But if you back out you can see the patterns in a classical sense.
Verificationism died for the same reason the sophists always destroy themselves. Most philsophies taken to their limits tend to be their own worst enemies. And a highly logical rational self consistent system of thought tends to structure things so well that the structure and ethics that underlay it are taken for granted. Therefore people raised in the shadow of it don't worry about ethics or logic so much because they just assume them to be absolute. And thus the system rots from within.
And then when it is good and rotten it will create a system so toxic and fucked up that a backlash is created driving the whole system back in the other direction.
Education would be hoped to avoid this oscillation but it never has.
They put an emphasis on accessibility because they're personally clueless.
I saw something about the Navy considering a BYOD policy with the Navy's computer systems.
I mean... what the fuck? These idiots should just get a custom US government smartphone and anyone that asks for an iphone should get a black bag thrown over their head and sent via CIA cargo plane to a black site.... where upon pictures of their electrified genitals are leaked onto the internet...
Not really... Just... there's stupid and there's so stupid that it should be classified as treason to promote that person above latrine digger.
this is the government and the military... and if the idiots running these systems can't be bothered to take security seriously than we need another group of idiots.
When you say you can't take me seriously because of a minor grammatical error that in no way impacted your ability to understand what I said, you're not offering friendly advice.
And if that was ACTUALLY your intention, then consider using less dismissive language in the future. If you presume to dismiss me, then I'm going to regard you as someone trying to dismiss me on an arbitrary basis. And that is a hostile act.
What matters is that the ongoing incompetence of the federal government permitted it to happen.
I'll say again, instead of getting the NSA to anally probe your own people utterly violating the 4th amendment... why don't you task your teams of tamed hackers to strengthen security throughout the government's computer systems?
They know how to breach systems so they know how to secure them. All they have to do is make the system so tough that even they couldn't get into them. And task a few of them to literally try to emperically test whether the security has literally arrived advanced to that point.
This is not an unreasonable standard.
If the NSA can breach your systems than so can the chinese probably. So if you want to keep the chinese out... make it tough enough that the NSA can't get in.
Any excuses should be met with summary executions. Just pistol to the temple and a query for any further questions?
Seriously though... the bad security is not acceptable. And without some drastic changes in culture, the systems will remain open books to any nation or even many criminal organizations that want in for any reason.
That's pathetic.
And a big part of the issue is that we're not putting technical people in charge of security.
Look, you wouldn't a guy without experience running warships in charge of the Navy would you? Would you put someone with no experience flying airplanes in charge of the air force? Then why are we putting non-computer experts in charge of computer systems?
They don't know what the fuck they're doing. Its like putting an accountant in charge of the Marines or putting the Marines in charge of a law firm. It doesn't make any sense. Stop doing that.
If you're having a hard time finding someone with command chops in the technical fields, then do what you do in every other branch of the government when you encounter that exact problem. Have a training program where in your people can get promoted into management. Why is this rocket science? The government understand this everywhere else in largely flawlessly. You need someone to run some aspect of the justice department? You promote someone with skills from within the department that understands LAW and law enforcement.
The ongoing idiocy of my entire culture... forget the government because the corporations are little better in most cases... it is shocking. They almost never put people that understand the tech in charge of the actual f'ing machines.
They understand they need to hire a lawyer to run the legal department. They understand they have to hire an accountant to run the Accounting department. They understand they have to hire a marketing guy to run the marketing department. But when it comes to IT? Well you can use anyone apparently. Put an accountant in charge... or a lawyer... or a marketing guy... or whatever. A fucking bag of dead kittens would appear to be sufficient.
The governments and big corps will say "but it will be really expensive to fix our problems"... it is only expensive because you've deferred maintenance for a million years. That like saying you can't fix the roof that has rotted out because that will be expensive. You fix that roof. You maintain that roof. You do not fuck with the roofing guys when they're telling you what has to happen. Because you know and understand that failing to do it means you get rained on.
The computer systems are the same thing. Only you only notice there is a problem if you know enough to notice or if there is a huge fucking disaster. If neither applies then people can be oblivious. WHich is possibly the attraction of people that don't know what they're doing... they can be oblivious.
harumph... First what is your problem with the way they treat their employees? That the warehouse employees aren't unionized? Is that it? Because most of the "they treat their employees badly" stuff these days is little more than poorly disguised agitation on the part of organized labor.
Second, I don't even know where you listen to new music anymore. I used to get new music off the radio or MTV or I'd pick something up in a CD shop that looked interesting. Today... I have no idea. what... spotify and pandora? I tell them what I like and they just play stuff from my generation. So I don't get exposed to anything new. What do you want me to type into the fucking thing?
I don't know where you get off presuming to judge me actually... who the fuck do you think you are? You think you're going to listen to the newest thing for your whole life?
First off, music is increasingly a less important part of my life. It bores me. Movies increasingly bore me as well. I see a couple blockbusters a year and that's it. The rest is tiresome. I enjoy a few of the good cable/streaming shows. I enjoy house of cards, game of thrones, etc. But really when it comes to my personal entertainment... I like games. And I like specific kinds and it is in my interest as a consumer of games to have as many people pumping money into the industry as possible. Amazon wants to pump money in? Good. We'll see what comes of it.
First, we don't know everything about it because it is being kept secret to a large extent and debate is being officially suppressed.
Second, yeah there are a lot of problems we've gotten out of it via leaks.
1. There is some sort of committee being set up to settle a wide array of disputes that the US will have to submit itself to whether or not it wants to. The committee will be made up of unelected officials from many nations and their decisions will be binding on the US. That all by itself is unacceptable. Its like wishing for infinite wishes. You write into the agreement that some group can obligate you to abide by new regulations that some other committee comes up with whenever they want? No.
2. There is a lot of information security stuff in there. Basically they're exporting a lot of the NSA wire tap stuff to the rest of the world and they're forcing the US to continue to spy on its own people to comply in turn.
3. There are a lot of regulations on labor unions that shouldn't be involved in a trade agreement.
4. There are an almost endless list of ticky tacky regulations that they're requiring on everything including paying private hospitals money if you open a public hospital near them to compensate them for POTENTIAL losses to their profits. But really there are an almost endless list of these.
5. Basically no one in government has read the thing and yet they want to have a vote on it when no one has read it. They will let congressman go in there and read it. But they can't take it with them, they can't take notes out of the room with it in there, and they can't tell people what is in the thing.
6. THat it is secret is a bad sign in and of itself. If it isn't going against US interests then there is no reason to suppress knowledge of it or suppress debate. The argument is being made that if more people knew about it, then it would make negociations harder. However, that isn't rational because you can use the US congress as defacto bad cop in the negociations. Where in the administration could say "well, I'd like to do that but I'd never get that through congress". Suppressing information means our bargaining position is weakened and it is more likely that bad legislation or bad regulations will get through congress because no one will have read them before they were signed into law.
Congressman rarely read all these bills. They're too long. They use staffers and interest groups and the media to do the heavy lifting. And by denying congress the ability to use those features, they're basically forbidding congress from reading the law. Has Obama read the whole thing? Of course not. He's used his own staffers, interest groups, etc to read it for him and distill it to what he's going to care about.
Congressman do the same thing. You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.
As to grammar nazism... Fuck off. I don't take such comments or the people that make them seriously on an internet forum.
If that causes you to not take me seriously... that doesn't matter to me because I already stopped taking you seriously when you suggested it was actually relevant.
As to string theory belonging more to mathematics than physics, that's fine. So long as you don't overstate the evidence. If it is taken as being a valid physics concept then it should have empirical evidence in physics.
You presumed to berate me for not ignoring you... then when I respond to your tiresome and petty little scree you complain that I didn't respond more fully.
Which would you rather have, cupcake?
You want a response which I'll expect you to respond to or do you want me to blow you off as another fucktard AC?
Choose.
1 or 0?
Do you want a discussion or do you want me to roll my eyes as your stupid ass and accept that you're good for nothing beyond "this".
You didn't say where the plan would fail. You just said that it would. Then you started talking about something in the UK that doesn't necessarily have relevant to the US cellular market.
Please explain why the concept will fail when they get GSM providers?
And please explain why the UK market is relevant to the US market in this context.
Yes, some guy in the Lancet said so... the chief editor said so in fact. And he was reporting on a conference in Oxford that was concerning the same thing.
Your pathetic attempt to undermine me with these childish arguments merely makes clear to anyone watching what you are.
You presented yourself in the last argument as a person with insider knowledge of the peer review system and said I was ignorant for suggesting there were problems.
I pointed you at an essay provided in the OP comment that showed the editor of the lancent making the same argument I was making.
You then largely ignored that refutation until I rubbed your face in it two or three times in a row. Then you denied the man said what he obviously said.
I then went through his essay line by line and showed that you were completely in error.
At which point you joined another discussion that touched upon a similar issue and started making childish comments.
You're a child. Bend over and accept the spanking.
Okay, lets go through his post bit by bit so it is extra clear to you.
""ÃoeA lot of what is published is incorrect.Ã IÃ(TM)m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ÃoepurdahÃÃ"a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the governmentÃ(TM)s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposiumÃ"on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last weekÃ"touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.""
That is the editor of the lancet accusing the scientific establishment of covering up flaws in the peer review process for political reasons. He's saying there is a conspiracy to deceive the public.
He starts with saying someone said "a lot of what is published is incorrect"... and by published we mean what was peer reviewed and published. He is also saying he isn't allowed to tell you who said that. He then says that they're not allowed to take recordings of the event out of the event... for political reasons. He says the government has specifically told the scientists to not quote them when they make statements or give orders to them on this matter. The entire thing is kept secret.
Is that not what he's saying?
And that is the first paragraph which I'm guessing you didn't read.
But it goes on:
""The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, Ãoepoor methods get resultsÃ. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of Ãoesignificanceà pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.""
First he says that a significant portion of what is published is untrue. The reasons for which are that studies often have sample sizes that render them unreliable, they are studying a tiny variation in variables that cannot be accurately attributed to anything, they start with inital premises that go unquestioned, the people conducting the studies sometimes are being paid, coerced, or profit in some manner by specific findings, and finally that certain co
Slashdot Mirror
Guy claiming to be from the DHS said that rumor in the department was that malware had been accidentally installed by some dipshit user on a workstation.
That means it isn't chinese hackers or false flags so much as government incompetence being covered up with finger pointing.
aka usual administrative ass covering.
Never label something as malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.
0?
Okay, fuck off.
There are two types of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
You can respond with 1 at any time if you'd like a real discussion. Anything else will be taken as a 0 because it won't be 1.
Bullshit. If you know how to attack then you know how an attacker will attack and you can test systems for security by attacking them.
Is this system secure? Attack it... did it withstand the attack or not? How did you get in if you got in?
Anyone that is that good at attacking knows how to defend.
I'm not debating this... you want to disagree on some myopic premise. Fine. We agree to disagree.
A better question is why you let people in OPM install executable code on workstations?
We've had white listing security information security systems for ages that are administrated by the sysop.
He designates the code that is permitted to run on specific machines by specific users and anything that isn't that code is not authorized to run.
Which means if some jackass tries to run an angry birds EXE on your system or whatever... it won't run. And depending on your security policies, the mere attempt can create a security flag with the system administrator.
So... why is that not in place when its totally easy to implient as of now?
And beyond that, I'm guessing your workstations are not terminals slaved to a terminal server? The virtue of the terminal is that all workstations operate off a standard system template that is reflreshed after every logout. The only things that are stored between login/logout are things in the file servers and the databases. Control of viruses, malware, or just bullshit programs is very easily tracked and controlled. Also any problem with the machines is a lot easier because the physical workstations are dumb terminals that can be junked for practically nothing and replaced... plug and play. And there's no need to install a new operating system or programs on the new system because all of it is on the terminal server.
Just saying. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a dick here. But whomever manages security in these departments needs to kneed hard enough in the groin that it causes an improvement in their priorities.
If you're saying this was caused by some dipshit user installing malware on a workstation that actually reflects very badly on the system design. Not the dipshit employee.
Firing the dipshit employee won't fix the problem. The problem is that any dipshit employee can install malware on your systems.
... way to strawman the fuck out of me.
First the commander and chief is the US President. He is also the head diplomat, the leader of the country, has enourmous control over the banking system, can dictate a great deal of policy to the legislature, has enourmous regulatory power, and yes... is also in utlimate command of the US military.
To qualify for all these positions, he'd have to be a general, a legislator, a legal expert, a financial expert, etc.
A CEO for example of a large corporation does not need to be an expert in every thing the company does because he delegates technical things to specializes below him in the chain of command. The president is the same way.
So no, your point about the president is not a flaw in my argument.
So... did you have a real point? Or just "that"?
So no response to my line by line proof that I was actually right and he was supporting my position?
No response to the fact that I wasn't lying and in fact you were just clueless because you either didn't read or worse didn't understand what you read?
Come on. You've made some bold claims there, junior. And I'd love to see you back fucking one of them up.
Do you know why you lose? Because all you care about is winning.
And because all you care about is winning, you fail to see that the easiest way to win is to be right.
I don't try to win. I try to be right.
The distinction is that you like to play rhetorical games to create IMPRESSION of being right. Where as I will actually change my position to fit the facts. So when push comes to shove... my feet are firmly planted able to bear the strain. Where as you fucking fall over in a heap.
You're a poser and not a very good one.
nah, he says he wants to do something useful. I said I wanted to play video games.
Anyway... haters gonna hate. Can't stop you from being a spiteful cunt. So I'm not going to try. :)
If we had that attitude, we'd have remained in the water with the rest of the fish.
You can stay here if you want. No one is forcing you to leave the planet.
Did you have anything specific you wanted to cite as being untrue or are you too afraid to engage in a real discussion where your baseless insults can be shredded for the moronic drek they are?
Grow a pair you spineless AC shitstain. Try to sustain an argument against me in anything but a cowardly one off comment followed by you running away with your tail between your legs.
Try me.
Call someone something without any evidence and you're going to get called on it.
what kind of world do we live in where little shitheads like you think you can just do that?
You want to make an accusation against Amazon? Cite a link.
Let us see your evidence. Asking me to do your work for you is typical. Its just more of the same intellectually lazy bullshit.
As to judging, I cited the exact place where you did it. I can't be more clear than that.
As to reactions and over reactions... Specious bullshit deserves to get its head caved in with a sledgehammer.
It isn't an over reaction. You make a claim? You back that shit up.
No isn't. The concept has existed at least since Diogenes. And it isn't going away. It will ebb and wane when the sophists grow strong but they'll always take their bullshit too far which will cause a die off at the hands of the cynics and stoics.
This has been going on for thousands of years. All these people are doing is winding a spring. They push it too far and the cynics and stoics will eat them alive.
We can already see it starting again. The sophists are currently in denial about what is coming but that's fine. The stoics etc are not interested in making the sophists happy.
I've seen a few academics openly argue in favor of sophistry. As if it is this poorly understood and much maligned philosophy or code of conduct.
And that's always a signal that the spring is getting really close to going PING.
Its like hearing people say "the market will never go down again" or "the market will never go up again its the end of the world"... both of which ironically tend to presage as move in the opposite direction.
The sophists are running wild. From what I can see, everyone knows it. They don't think about it in those terms... and instead see it in terms of ethical violations or lax ethical codes or propensity for people to do things on false pretenses. But if you back out you can see the patterns in a classical sense.
Verificationism died for the same reason the sophists always destroy themselves. Most philsophies taken to their limits tend to be their own worst enemies. And a highly logical rational self consistent system of thought tends to structure things so well that the structure and ethics that underlay it are taken for granted. Therefore people raised in the shadow of it don't worry about ethics or logic so much because they just assume them to be absolute. And thus the system rots from within.
And then when it is good and rotten it will create a system so toxic and fucked up that a backlash is created driving the whole system back in the other direction.
Education would be hoped to avoid this oscillation but it never has.
They put an emphasis on accessibility because they're personally clueless.
I saw something about the Navy considering a BYOD policy with the Navy's computer systems.
I mean... what the fuck? These idiots should just get a custom US government smartphone and anyone that asks for an iphone should get a black bag thrown over their head and sent via CIA cargo plane to a black site.... where upon pictures of their electrified genitals are leaked onto the internet...
Not really... Just... there's stupid and there's so stupid that it should be classified as treason to promote that person above latrine digger.
this is the government and the military... and if the idiots running these systems can't be bothered to take security seriously than we need another group of idiots.
Exactly... whatever anyone thinks of the ACA it shouldn't have passed the way it did. It just pissed people off.
Anyone that says they need to subvert the democratic process doesn't value the democratic process.
When you say you can't take me seriously because of a minor grammatical error that in no way impacted your ability to understand what I said, you're not offering friendly advice.
And if that was ACTUALLY your intention, then consider using less dismissive language in the future. If you presume to dismiss me, then I'm going to regard you as someone trying to dismiss me on an arbitrary basis. And that is a hostile act.
What matters is that the ongoing incompetence of the federal government permitted it to happen.
I'll say again, instead of getting the NSA to anally probe your own people utterly violating the 4th amendment... why don't you task your teams of tamed hackers to strengthen security throughout the government's computer systems?
They know how to breach systems so they know how to secure them. All they have to do is make the system so tough that even they couldn't get into them. And task a few of them to literally try to emperically test whether the security has literally arrived advanced to that point.
This is not an unreasonable standard.
If the NSA can breach your systems than so can the chinese probably. So if you want to keep the chinese out... make it tough enough that the NSA can't get in.
Any excuses should be met with summary executions. Just pistol to the temple and a query for any further questions?
Seriously though... the bad security is not acceptable. And without some drastic changes in culture, the systems will remain open books to any nation or even many criminal organizations that want in for any reason.
That's pathetic.
And a big part of the issue is that we're not putting technical people in charge of security.
Look, you wouldn't a guy without experience running warships in charge of the Navy would you? Would you put someone with no experience flying airplanes in charge of the air force? Then why are we putting non-computer experts in charge of computer systems?
They don't know what the fuck they're doing. Its like putting an accountant in charge of the Marines or putting the Marines in charge of a law firm. It doesn't make any sense. Stop doing that.
If you're having a hard time finding someone with command chops in the technical fields, then do what you do in every other branch of the government when you encounter that exact problem. Have a training program where in your people can get promoted into management. Why is this rocket science? The government understand this everywhere else in largely flawlessly. You need someone to run some aspect of the justice department? You promote someone with skills from within the department that understands LAW and law enforcement.
The ongoing idiocy of my entire culture... forget the government because the corporations are little better in most cases... it is shocking. They almost never put people that understand the tech in charge of the actual f'ing machines.
They understand they need to hire a lawyer to run the legal department. They understand they have to hire an accountant to run the Accounting department. They understand they have to hire a marketing guy to run the marketing department. But when it comes to IT? Well you can use anyone apparently. Put an accountant in charge... or a lawyer... or a marketing guy... or whatever. A fucking bag of dead kittens would appear to be sufficient.
The governments and big corps will say "but it will be really expensive to fix our problems"... it is only expensive because you've deferred maintenance for a million years. That like saying you can't fix the roof that has rotted out because that will be expensive. You fix that roof. You maintain that roof. You do not fuck with the roofing guys when they're telling you what has to happen. Because you know and understand that failing to do it means you get rained on.
The computer systems are the same thing. Only you only notice there is a problem if you know enough to notice or if there is a huge fucking disaster. If neither applies then people can be oblivious. WHich is possibly the attraction of people that don't know what they're doing... they can be oblivious.
harumph... First what is your problem with the way they treat their employees? That the warehouse employees aren't unionized? Is that it? Because most of the "they treat their employees badly" stuff these days is little more than poorly disguised agitation on the part of organized labor.
Second, I don't even know where you listen to new music anymore. I used to get new music off the radio or MTV or I'd pick something up in a CD shop that looked interesting. Today... I have no idea. what... spotify and pandora? I tell them what I like and they just play stuff from my generation. So I don't get exposed to anything new. What do you want me to type into the fucking thing?
I don't know where you get off presuming to judge me actually... who the fuck do you think you are? You think you're going to listen to the newest thing for your whole life?
First off, music is increasingly a less important part of my life. It bores me. Movies increasingly bore me as well. I see a couple blockbusters a year and that's it. The rest is tiresome. I enjoy a few of the good cable/streaming shows. I enjoy house of cards, game of thrones, etc. But really when it comes to my personal entertainment... I like games. And I like specific kinds and it is in my interest as a consumer of games to have as many people pumping money into the industry as possible. Amazon wants to pump money in? Good. We'll see what comes of it.
Oh and go fuck yourself with a rake. :D
First, we don't know everything about it because it is being kept secret to a large extent and debate is being officially suppressed.
Second, yeah there are a lot of problems we've gotten out of it via leaks.
1. There is some sort of committee being set up to settle a wide array of disputes that the US will have to submit itself to whether or not it wants to. The committee will be made up of unelected officials from many nations and their decisions will be binding on the US. That all by itself is unacceptable. Its like wishing for infinite wishes. You write into the agreement that some group can obligate you to abide by new regulations that some other committee comes up with whenever they want? No.
2. There is a lot of information security stuff in there. Basically they're exporting a lot of the NSA wire tap stuff to the rest of the world and they're forcing the US to continue to spy on its own people to comply in turn.
3. There are a lot of regulations on labor unions that shouldn't be involved in a trade agreement.
4. There are an almost endless list of ticky tacky regulations that they're requiring on everything including paying private hospitals money if you open a public hospital near them to compensate them for POTENTIAL losses to their profits. But really there are an almost endless list of these.
5. Basically no one in government has read the thing and yet they want to have a vote on it when no one has read it. They will let congressman go in there and read it. But they can't take it with them, they can't take notes out of the room with it in there, and they can't tell people what is in the thing.
6. THat it is secret is a bad sign in and of itself. If it isn't going against US interests then there is no reason to suppress knowledge of it or suppress debate. The argument is being made that if more people knew about it, then it would make negociations harder. However, that isn't rational because you can use the US congress as defacto bad cop in the negociations. Where in the administration could say "well, I'd like to do that but I'd never get that through congress". Suppressing information means our bargaining position is weakened and it is more likely that bad legislation or bad regulations will get through congress because no one will have read them before they were signed into law.
Congressman rarely read all these bills. They're too long. They use staffers and interest groups and the media to do the heavy lifting. And by denying congress the ability to use those features, they're basically forbidding congress from reading the law. Has Obama read the whole thing? Of course not. He's used his own staffers, interest groups, etc to read it for him and distill it to what he's going to care about.
Congressman do the same thing. You can't deny their staffers and interest groups and the media access to the legislation and expect them to know what was in the bill.
I've done that for years and have never had to deal with anything at airport security that everyone doesn't deal with...
Fun fact for you, I actually legally skip most security check points.
So... I'm not only not getting subjected to more, I'm subjected to less.
I had to pay about 50 bucks for the ID and go through all the forms etc... but then they leave you alone.
As to grammar nazism... Fuck off. I don't take such comments or the people that make them seriously on an internet forum.
If that causes you to not take me seriously... that doesn't matter to me because I already stopped taking you seriously when you suggested it was actually relevant.
As to string theory belonging more to mathematics than physics, that's fine. So long as you don't overstate the evidence. If it is taken as being a valid physics concept then it should have empirical evidence in physics.
You presumed to berate me for not ignoring you... then when I respond to your tiresome and petty little scree you complain that I didn't respond more fully.
Which would you rather have, cupcake?
You want a response which I'll expect you to respond to or do you want me to blow you off as another fucktard AC?
Choose.
1 or 0?
Do you want a discussion or do you want me to roll my eyes as your stupid ass and accept that you're good for nothing beyond "this".
I thought you might enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You didn't say where the plan would fail. You just said that it would. Then you started talking about something in the UK that doesn't necessarily have relevant to the US cellular market.
Please explain why the concept will fail when they get GSM providers?
And please explain why the UK market is relevant to the US market in this context.
Thank you.
Yes, some guy in the Lancet said so... the chief editor said so in fact. And he was reporting on a conference in Oxford that was concerning the same thing.
Your pathetic attempt to undermine me with these childish arguments merely makes clear to anyone watching what you are.
You presented yourself in the last argument as a person with insider knowledge of the peer review system and said I was ignorant for suggesting there were problems.
I pointed you at an essay provided in the OP comment that showed the editor of the lancent making the same argument I was making.
You then largely ignored that refutation until I rubbed your face in it two or three times in a row. Then you denied the man said what he obviously said.
I then went through his essay line by line and showed that you were completely in error.
At which point you joined another discussion that touched upon a similar issue and started making childish comments.
You're a child. Bend over and accept the spanking.
One to my congressman and one to each senator.
Don't really know what else to do.
And as I proved in this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
""
Okay, lets go through his post bit by bit so it is extra clear to you.
""ÃoeA lot of what is published is incorrect.Ã IÃ(TM)m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ÃoepurdahÃÃ"a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the governmentÃ(TM)s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposiumÃ"on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last weekÃ"touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.""
That is the editor of the lancet accusing the scientific establishment of covering up flaws in the peer review process for political reasons. He's saying there is a conspiracy to deceive the public.
He starts with saying someone said "a lot of what is published is incorrect"... and by published we mean what was peer reviewed and published. He is also saying he isn't allowed to tell you who said that. He then says that they're not allowed to take recordings of the event out of the event... for political reasons. He says the government has specifically told the scientists to not quote them when they make statements or give orders to them on this matter. The entire thing is kept secret.
Is that not what he's saying?
And that is the first paragraph which I'm guessing you didn't read.
But it goes on:
""The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, Ãoepoor methods get resultsÃ. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of Ãoesignificanceà pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.""
First he says that a significant portion of what is published is untrue. The reasons for which are that studies often have sample sizes that render them unreliable, they are studying a tiny variation in variables that cannot be accurately attributed to anything, they start with inital premises that go unquestioned, the people conducting the studies sometimes are being paid, coerced, or profit in some manner by specific findings, and finally that certain co