As someone that has worked with small business customers a lot... they don't care so long as it works.
If I need to update the firmware on the pumps, then no one is going to care how I do it so long as it works.
I also fail to see why this idea is less attractive then the more fully software methods? This is pretty simple and you could build a rig that did this in an afternoon.
Well Mr AC, I see a lot of claims made in there and literally no supporting points.
Would you mind backing any of that up with anything?
I suspect you're mostly either whining about the NSA or Google using its adbots to read your email for targeted advertising?
In the case of the NSA, that is really only going to effect anyone that makes no effort to avoid that kind of surveliance. We're seeing huge changes in the way that data is handled so I don't think the NSA is going to get away with that for very long.
As to google reading your email... I don't see how that is control and the snooping is only done to sell you shit. And honestly I don't even see those ads because adblock.
And even then if you have any interest in avoiding that there lots of alternatives to avoid google snooping on your email.
Were people in general more free five years ago? What about 10? What about 15? What about 20?
Find me any group of people that you feel is being controlled by this stuff and if we followed the same people back through time you'd find that THIS is an improvement.
You can't compare the facebook addicts to you or me. We're not that demographic. I know that I am every bit as free now as I was before. I'm in no way more controlled by the social media barons than I ever was... and for those that are under the thumb of such people, what were they doing before that was so liberating?
They were never in those early forums of the internet. These are not those sorts of people.
I am... and I suspect you are as well... what has changed for us? I've lost nothing... neither have you... and neither have the facebook addicts. They never had the experiences you think they lost. And they never would have come to that world either way.
You're looking at people that used to just watch TV before... a little MTV or some cartoons or something. They didn't even interact on the internet.
Be happy they're this active. And as you pointed out with your kids, Facebook is already dead. Mostly because facebook has too many aunts on it.
When my 60 year old mother hangs out of facebook and scours every family member's pages for gossip... you know it isn't a good place for kids to hang out. As to instagram etc... they're going to use services that are harder to monitor. And with that, the social media censors lose their power as well because they're not really able to monitor it either when it gets that way.
As to facebook, it is losing interest not gaining it.
Are certain social media outlets sanitized? Yep. But consider what existed before that for the sorts of people that use face book? They have MORE ability to exchange information with each other than they did before.
Do they have as much as I do or you do? No. But then we are not limited to facebook. We are more comfortable moving through a more democratized cloud of social groups where it is effectively impossible to censor us.
So all things are relative. Do some people operate in more limited communities? Yes. But they're LESS limited than what those same people had before and we have suffered no reduction in our freedoms.
So the over all trend is strongly towards things opening up more because every person in their own context is getting MORE access.
You're right, I misread the date. They have covered for her however in many different instances so I simply assumed that would be more of the same. Furthermore, what would actually be released is questionable. There is a lot of stall tactics and goal post moving on on with that sort of stuff. You ask for something, they delay six months, then give you something other than what you asked for... you say "where is the thing I asked for" and they say "oh you meant that other thing... that will be another six months"... rinse and repeat. In anything but a major branch of the federal government that sort of behavior would get fines leived so stiff that the political establishment would just comply out of self preservation. But the federal government doesn't really have to... I mean, what are you going to do to them? What if they just stone wall and stall?
There is a long list of issues that she's going to have to deal with... There was the non-disclosure agreement which she was supposed to sign which she didn't... lots of misinformation around the whole Benghazi situation. The email server she kept to avoid congressional audits is a problem. That she deleted the emails prior to handing over information is a problem. That she maintained multiple email accounts which were not declared is a problem.The whole thing about her using mercenaries to do intelligence work is just bizarre. There is the whole crazy situation with the Russian uranium mine purchase. There is the stuff with her brother getting some interest in a Haitian gold mine for no apparent reason. There is the seeming quid pro quo between her state department doing something nice for foreign interests and then Bill getting a speaking gig for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Etc.
There's a long list of stuff. You can't blow it all off with credibility.
... I think they would if Hillary were a competent politician... that is someone good at politics. But she's not. She's not good at kissing babies. She's not good making people feel the love. She's not inspirational. The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Bill Clinton and really that can only go so far. It is amazing how far she's been able to stretch that.
The media would be doing more for her if she were holding up her end of it. But she's basically a cold fish in that relationship. She just lays there not moving at all while the media TRIES to get something happening. Not terrible stimulating. She's basically been hiding for weeks hoping that all the controversy will go away. This would work if we were all babies because Peek-a-boo is highly entertaining... if you are a toddler. It loses its appeal rapidly after that age.
She's going to be a laughing stock if she isn't replaced. The former governor of Maryland is making a bid for the nomination and he's looking more credible by the day... and that's even taking into consideration that he's coming out of Maryland... which just suffered a nasty race riot.
Most of the dem strategists have admitted this and have said they're quite afraid of the ultimate consequences if she gets the nomination.
Don't get me wrong... her allies will try. But she's not giving them anything to work with.
None of this is helped by her generally unappealing personality etc.
She will still get the the base of the democrat party. Just as the republicans will always get the base of the republican party.
However, whether everyone from the base shows up is questionable and how many either side can attract from the middle is debatable.
Its not just happening in canada but pretty much anywhere that notices are issued. Even if there are no consequences, getting a notice in the mail is scary and people don't like it. The false assumption of the copyright lobbies is that if such notices are issued that people will just stop.
No... they'll just do it in a way that is harder to track.
The thing is that the state department had to okay the deal and the Clintons... and several of their associates directly profited.
If Hillary weren't the primary Democrat hope for the next presidential election, she might already have been charged with a crime.
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
It is extremely political. Hopefully the democrats can find someone less compromised to run for office so they don't feel the need to protect Hillary at all costs.
Were it not for that... again, she'd already be facing charges. But the administration is rallying behind her, the State Department is refusing to release information, the Justice Department is refusing to prosecute, and as usual congress is deadlocked with both major parties gripping the other by the throat and squeezing.
In the end, it is quite likely that hillary is going to collapse. She's a little too much like Al Gore and not enough like Slick Willy. We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
She's fucked. Will she spend a day in jail? Probably not. But neither will she be president. That train has sailed.
How do you figure that they have more control now than they did before?
You do know the internet started as a government funded initiative right?
If anything, the powerful interests are losing control... not gaining it.
Offer a counter argument. Explain why I am wrong in some sort of rational way that can be interpreted. Simply making these bald statements is not auditable and therefore technically not an argument.
The issue is whether THIS technology makes more sense given all relevant variables than the existing technology.
And the answer is that existing technology is in most respects superior.
1. It is cheaper. 2. It is sourcible from many different suppliers. 3. There are no compatibility issues between vendors. 4. Maintenance and depreciation of investment is lower. 5. Existing technology is more flexible. 6. Existing tech is less likely to distract students. 7. Existing tech requires no additional training to operate. 8. Existing tech is already installed. 9. Existing tech is radically more reliable and far less likely to have any down time.
And no where did I say we should go back to the caves and pound rocks either.
Use the best tool for the job is what I said.
And this MS shit is expensive, locks you into an MS contract, lacks the flexibility of a chalkboard, and doesn't appear to offer any features you couldn't obtain with a cheap as fuck overhead projector or fairly cheap meeting projector of the type that teachers often use.
Teachers will bring their laptop, plug it into a media cart that has a projector wired into it... and they can show the kids whatever is on their laptop. How is this MS shit superior? Because it has touch? Who cares? A prepared teacher isn't going to need any of that crap.
And furthermore, a lot of this tech distracts from the subject matter. People get so drawn into the oooh aaah of the animations that forget that they're there to actually learn something about history or something.
This is a crass sales pitch designed to woo idiots that will spend other people's money on shit the education system doesn't need and can't afford.
Something the FBI does with sensitive workers with security clearance in top secret projects is that they pose as foreign agents and try to buy access to their work.
The worker fails and is arrested if they accept the deal. It is basically entrapment but apparently it is legal. I don't especially mind either. I think entrapment is fine under a lot of circumstances.
If you gave me a gun with blanks in it and said I could murder some random person... I wouldn't do it. But if I tried, then I probably am not someone you want on the streets.
Anyway the FBI does like to do that and frankly this is a good way testing security. You have the FBI or whomever breach the system and then you see how the resident IT department deals with it. They cover it up then that goes into the report. If they report it that goes into the report. IF they stop it then that goes into the report. If they don't stop it then that goes into the report. If they don't even fucking notice then that goes into the report.
And based on that you can make further recommendations.
I've responded to your point already. You conflating lots of different things. Voting also doesn't cost money. You can vote for free. This notion of money needing to be spent is an indicator and not actually politically actionable.
You can't say "I should have won because I got more donations."... it is a correlative indicator. Like a poll.
And it is distorted by a lot of things. For one thing, rich people can donate lots of dollars but everyone only gets one vote. So someone can get the support of rich people and get a lots of money but when it comes time to actually win... you need population... not money.
This is why both parties make appeals to poor people. If all you needed to do was get money then you'd just appeal to the rich and completely ignore the poor.
We're done talking about money. You're confused on that issue and frankly it is boring me.
Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.
I and running you through a sophistry detector and you're coming up wanting.
The sorts of questions I'm posing to you are the sorts the Stoics posed to the sophists. It was the sort of question that Diogenes asked men when he held his unlit lantern to people's faces and told them he was searching the world for an honest man.
I think your position is bullshit. Likely not deliberately. I think someone sold you a prepackaged argument and you've never read the fine print.
Your argument is frankly trite. It is just a common argument from the common echo chamber. You picked it up and you complete bafflement when presented with my questions really just proves you've never really given it any thought.
That's fine. I'm not telling you that have to believe anything or agree with me. However, you cannot presume to have a considered philosophical and intellectual position if you've never really thought about the issue before in any depth.
HS is not an education but a primer to education. No one looks at a high school student and says "oh he's educated" and no one ever has. The point was to give people enough so they weren't fucking clueless.
So you teach them to read, some geography, enough math that they can understand the basics and can grasp the beginnings of the next levels up. You teach them some literature and so they understand what some of that culture stuff is all about... etc etc.
What tech skills do HS students need? Enough to generally understand what they're looking at and how things work so they can continue to learn if they so choose.
... this is so mindlessly kneejerk that it doesn't qualify as human thought.
We're talking about who should design secure government computer systems.
One would think you would admit that the NSA is competent at cracking computer systems. As such, they know how to secure them as well. Which means they're qualified.
I expect you're an "abolish the nsa" type person? Well, get over it... major countries need electronic intelligence divisions.
Does the NSA need to be reformed? Obviously. should nothing like the NSA exist? It obviously has to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone that has worked with small business customers a lot... they don't care so long as it works.
If I need to update the firmware on the pumps, then no one is going to care how I do it so long as it works.
I also fail to see why this idea is less attractive then the more fully software methods? This is pretty simple and you could build a rig that did this in an afternoon.
Well Mr AC, I see a lot of claims made in there and literally no supporting points.
Would you mind backing any of that up with anything?
I suspect you're mostly either whining about the NSA or Google using its adbots to read your email for targeted advertising?
In the case of the NSA, that is really only going to effect anyone that makes no effort to avoid that kind of surveliance. We're seeing huge changes in the way that data is handled so I don't think the NSA is going to get away with that for very long.
As to google reading your email... I don't see how that is control and the snooping is only done to sell you shit. And honestly I don't even see those ads because adblock.
And even then if you have any interest in avoiding that there lots of alternatives to avoid google snooping on your email.
Its a choice. You either care or you don't.
Were people in general more free five years ago?
What about 10?
What about 15?
What about 20?
Find me any group of people that you feel is being controlled by this stuff and if we followed the same people back through time you'd find that THIS is an improvement.
You can't compare the facebook addicts to you or me. We're not that demographic. I know that I am every bit as free now as I was before. I'm in no way more controlled by the social media barons than I ever was... and for those that are under the thumb of such people, what were they doing before that was so liberating?
They were never in those early forums of the internet. These are not those sorts of people.
I am... and I suspect you are as well... what has changed for us? I've lost nothing... neither have you... and neither have the facebook addicts. They never had the experiences you think they lost. And they never would have come to that world either way.
You're looking at people that used to just watch TV before... a little MTV or some cartoons or something. They didn't even interact on the internet.
Be happy they're this active. And as you pointed out with your kids, Facebook is already dead. Mostly because facebook has too many aunts on it.
When my 60 year old mother hangs out of facebook and scours every family member's pages for gossip... you know it isn't a good place for kids to hang out. As to instagram etc... they're going to use services that are harder to monitor. And with that, the social media censors lose their power as well because they're not really able to monitor it either when it gets that way.
As to facebook, it is losing interest not gaining it.
Are certain social media outlets sanitized? Yep. But consider what existed before that for the sorts of people that use face book? They have MORE ability to exchange information with each other than they did before.
Do they have as much as I do or you do? No. But then we are not limited to facebook. We are more comfortable moving through a more democratized cloud of social groups where it is effectively impossible to censor us.
So all things are relative. Do some people operate in more limited communities? Yes. But they're LESS limited than what those same people had before and we have suffered no reduction in our freedoms.
So the over all trend is strongly towards things opening up more because every person in their own context is getting MORE access.
You're right, I misread the date. They have covered for her however in many different instances so I simply assumed that would be more of the same. Furthermore, what would actually be released is questionable. There is a lot of stall tactics and goal post moving on on with that sort of stuff. You ask for something, they delay six months, then give you something other than what you asked for... you say "where is the thing I asked for" and they say "oh you meant that other thing... that will be another six months"... rinse and repeat. In anything but a major branch of the federal government that sort of behavior would get fines leived so stiff that the political establishment would just comply out of self preservation. But the federal government doesn't really have to... I mean, what are you going to do to them? What if they just stone wall and stall?
There is a long list of issues that she's going to have to deal with... There was the non-disclosure agreement which she was supposed to sign which she didn't... lots of misinformation around the whole Benghazi situation. The email server she kept to avoid congressional audits is a problem. That she deleted the emails prior to handing over information is a problem. That she maintained multiple email accounts which were not declared is a problem.The whole thing about her using mercenaries to do intelligence work is just bizarre. There is the whole crazy situation with the Russian uranium mine purchase. There is the stuff with her brother getting some interest in a Haitian gold mine for no apparent reason. There is the seeming quid pro quo between her state department doing something nice for foreign interests and then Bill getting a speaking gig for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Etc.
There's a long list of stuff. You can't blow it all off with credibility.
... I think they would if Hillary were a competent politician... that is someone good at politics. But she's not. She's not good at kissing babies. She's not good making people feel the love. She's not inspirational. The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Bill Clinton and really that can only go so far. It is amazing how far she's been able to stretch that.
The media would be doing more for her if she were holding up her end of it. But she's basically a cold fish in that relationship. She just lays there not moving at all while the media TRIES to get something happening. Not terrible stimulating. She's basically been hiding for weeks hoping that all the controversy will go away. This would work if we were all babies because Peek-a-boo is highly entertaining... if you are a toddler. It loses its appeal rapidly after that age.
She's going to be a laughing stock if she isn't replaced. The former governor of Maryland is making a bid for the nomination and he's looking more credible by the day... and that's even taking into consideration that he's coming out of Maryland... which just suffered a nasty race riot.
Most of the dem strategists have admitted this and have said they're quite afraid of the ultimate consequences if she gets the nomination.
Don't get me wrong... her allies will try. But she's not giving them anything to work with.
None of this is helped by her generally unappealing personality etc.
She will still get the the base of the democrat party. Just as the republicans will always get the base of the republican party.
However, whether everyone from the base shows up is questionable and how many either side can attract from the middle is debatable.
Exactly. Cyberlockers are VPNs.
Its not just happening in canada but pretty much anywhere that notices are issued. Even if there are no consequences, getting a notice in the mail is scary and people don't like it. The false assumption of the copyright lobbies is that if such notices are issued that people will just stop.
No... they'll just do it in a way that is harder to track.
The thing is that the state department had to okay the deal and the Clintons... and several of their associates directly profited.
If Hillary weren't the primary Democrat hope for the next presidential election, she might already have been charged with a crime.
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
It is extremely political. Hopefully the democrats can find someone less compromised to run for office so they don't feel the need to protect Hillary at all costs.
Were it not for that... again, she'd already be facing charges. But the administration is rallying behind her, the State Department is refusing to release information, the Justice Department is refusing to prosecute, and as usual congress is deadlocked with both major parties gripping the other by the throat and squeezing.
In the end, it is quite likely that hillary is going to collapse. She's a little too much like Al Gore and not enough like Slick Willy. We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
She's fucked. Will she spend a day in jail? Probably not. But neither will she be president. That train has sailed.
How do you figure that they have more control now than they did before?
You do know the internet started as a government funded initiative right?
If anything, the powerful interests are losing control... not gaining it.
Offer a counter argument. Explain why I am wrong in some sort of rational way that can be interpreted. Simply making these bald statements is not auditable and therefore technically not an argument.
The issue is not for or against technology.
The issue is whether THIS technology makes more sense given all relevant variables than the existing technology.
And the answer is that existing technology is in most respects superior.
1. It is cheaper.
2. It is sourcible from many different suppliers.
3. There are no compatibility issues between vendors.
4. Maintenance and depreciation of investment is lower.
5. Existing technology is more flexible.
6. Existing tech is less likely to distract students.
7. Existing tech requires no additional training to operate.
8. Existing tech is already installed.
9. Existing tech is radically more reliable and far less likely to have any down time.
Etc.
Chalkboards win.
Topic concluded. Next issue.
Because if you can remotely connect and disconnect them then you can update them in you pajamas from the other side of the world.
You can also automate the entire process so that while it might take eight hours... you are personally not sitting there while it happens.
You can have a script run that sequentially updates each station and you can do so without actually having to physically go to the station.
The construction of the rig would be pretty cheap. You could hack something together with an arduino with an ethernet shield. or get yourself a Yun.
... I mean... there are some VPNs that are literally free.
Hey bingo
The answer? No... I'm expecting you to have any thinking on the issue at all.
If you'd have given the issue any thought you'd have some ideas. You don't so my suspicions were confirmed.
Which means I'm arguing with dogma and that is always a waste of time.
If you could automate the process of connecting and disconnecting ethernet cables physically then I assume the networking issue would be settled?
You might consider using servos to unplug and plug cables into a switch.
And no where did I say we should go back to the caves and pound rocks either.
Use the best tool for the job is what I said.
And this MS shit is expensive, locks you into an MS contract, lacks the flexibility of a chalkboard, and doesn't appear to offer any features you couldn't obtain with a cheap as fuck overhead projector or fairly cheap meeting projector of the type that teachers often use.
Teachers will bring their laptop, plug it into a media cart that has a projector wired into it... and they can show the kids whatever is on their laptop. How is this MS shit superior? Because it has touch? Who cares? A prepared teacher isn't going to need any of that crap.
And furthermore, a lot of this tech distracts from the subject matter. People get so drawn into the oooh aaah of the animations that forget that they're there to actually learn something about history or something.
This is a crass sales pitch designed to woo idiots that will spend other people's money on shit the education system doesn't need and can't afford.
Something the FBI does with sensitive workers with security clearance in top secret projects is that they pose as foreign agents and try to buy access to their work.
The worker fails and is arrested if they accept the deal. It is basically entrapment but apparently it is legal. I don't especially mind either. I think entrapment is fine under a lot of circumstances.
If you gave me a gun with blanks in it and said I could murder some random person... I wouldn't do it. But if I tried, then I probably am not someone you want on the streets.
Anyway the FBI does like to do that and frankly this is a good way testing security. You have the FBI or whomever breach the system and then you see how the resident IT department deals with it. They cover it up then that goes into the report. If they report it that goes into the report. IF they stop it then that goes into the report. If they don't stop it then that goes into the report. If they don't even fucking notice then that goes into the report.
And based on that you can make further recommendations.
I've responded to your point already. You conflating lots of different things. Voting also doesn't cost money. You can vote for free. This notion of money needing to be spent is an indicator and not actually politically actionable.
You can't say "I should have won because I got more donations."... it is a correlative indicator. Like a poll.
And it is distorted by a lot of things. For one thing, rich people can donate lots of dollars but everyone only gets one vote. So someone can get the support of rich people and get a lots of money but when it comes time to actually win... you need population... not money.
This is why both parties make appeals to poor people. If all you needed to do was get money then you'd just appeal to the rich and completely ignore the poor.
We're done talking about money. You're confused on that issue and frankly it is boring me.
Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.
I and running you through a sophistry detector and you're coming up wanting.
The sorts of questions I'm posing to you are the sorts the Stoics posed to the sophists. It was the sort of question that Diogenes asked men when he held his unlit lantern to people's faces and told them he was searching the world for an honest man.
I think your position is bullshit. Likely not deliberately. I think someone sold you a prepackaged argument and you've never read the fine print.
Your argument is frankly trite. It is just a common argument from the common echo chamber. You picked it up and you complete bafflement when presented with my questions really just proves you've never really given it any thought.
That's fine. I'm not telling you that have to believe anything or agree with me. However, you cannot presume to have a considered philosophical and intellectual position if you've never really thought about the issue before in any depth.
That's all.
Good day.
I doubt it... That segment is loud and pretentious but not nearly as numerous or well regarded as many in the media seem to think.
Its all left wing social justice warrior shit as well.
There is very little development in the existing super hero universe.
HS is not an education but a primer to education. No one looks at a high school student and says "oh he's educated" and no one ever has. The point was to give people enough so they weren't fucking clueless.
So you teach them to read, some geography, enough math that they can understand the basics and can grasp the beginnings of the next levels up. You teach them some literature and so they understand what some of that culture stuff is all about... etc etc.
What tech skills do HS students need? Enough to generally understand what they're looking at and how things work so they can continue to learn if they so choose.
... this is so mindlessly kneejerk that it doesn't qualify as human thought.
We're talking about who should design secure government computer systems.
One would think you would admit that the NSA is competent at cracking computer systems. As such, they know how to secure them as well. Which means they're qualified.
I expect you're an "abolish the nsa" type person? Well, get over it... major countries need electronic intelligence divisions.
Does the NSA need to be reformed? Obviously. should nothing like the NSA exist? It obviously has to exist.
Abandon all hope, shithead. Your stupid strawmens shall avail you nothing. ;)
You can try again if you want to strip out all pretenses of actually representing my position with that shit.
If not, that's cool too... it just means you're unworthy of regard.