Then you design a system that's going to catch such attempts to bypass the checks, if not today, eventually. Punish those who get caught trying game the system.
You can greatly reduce such things by making it take two or more persons to sacrifice their ethics to do so. Rotate the responsibility for cross checking regularly and you make it even harder to find a group of people willing to participate. Sure, you and your buddy might be able to fool the system, for awhile, but eventually you both get found out.
So gaming the system may not be prevented, but you can design the system to catch such things eventually.
Good navigators ALWAYS have a map out with their last known position and expected flight path marked on it. I don't care WHO you are or what kind of navigation system you have, good practice demands that a pilot keep situational awareness as sharp as possible, meaning that you are keeping track of where you are, the status of your equipment and where the nearest emergency diversion airfield might be.
However, there ARE ways to enforce accuracy.... Make the bridge crew enter their manual position observations and calculations and then routinely judge the accuracy of the manual log with the automatic position logs. If there are variances, they will need to be explained. If you are not accurate enough with your manual entries, you don't keep your qualification.
I always wondered why the Navy gave up the celestial navigation qualification requirement. Never made sense to me.
LOL.. Really? The USA is a bad actor? I think history has another view of this.
Think about it. What *could* the USA do if it wanted too? We spend more money on our military than more than half the world does. We can literally project military power *anyplace* we choose for any reason we want. Now tell me again how the USA is a bad actor in the world...
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we've always done the right thing by everyone, we haven't, or that we've not inserted ourselves into local and regional conflicts where we've not really belonged, but I AM telling you that our intentions are NOT to do harm, but good. We are not always successful, but we mean well.
IF we really wanted to do bad things or act selfishly, there would be little to stop us. We could own all of Japan, most of Europe, and any place we wanted to acquire. But that's not what we do. Historically, we have shed our own blood for the cause of freedom for others, and after conquering territory on behalf of others, promptly returned it to it's previous owners asking for nothing in return. No other country in history has been so dominate, yet so willing to live and let live.
Perhaps, but this is only illegal if the campaign ASKED for this ad campaign on Facebook. The campaign is NOT liable for activities of others unless they are directly requesting such actions.
So the fact that a Facebook campaign was purchased by some foreign entity is not prima facie proof of an illegal activity. You MUST also prove that the campaign asked for this to be done.
The technology used might be new, but the technique is not. It's called propaganda and it's been used since the dawn of time.
The defense for propaganda is not to suppress it (because you really can't), but to educate the people targeted by it in the truth so they recognize propaganda when they see it. The problem we face is that we've been fighting propaganda with propaganda of our own and now the masses don't understand what the truth is. It's so bad that the media in our country, the very institution that's supposed to be speaking truth, has largely become full of propaganda and bereft of facts and critical thinking.
What evidence do we have of this? The most current example is how the last presidential election was being forecasted on November 8th. NOBODY though Hillary would/could lose. Why is that? Where the polls wrong? Yes they were, very wrong in some cases. Even the exit polling was wrong. Think about why this was and tell me the media was doing it's job with a straight face....
Second, I believe that you are talking about foreign participation in our elections. Where candidates and campaigns may not knowingly ask for or accept *resources* (money, services) from foreign sources, that's about as far as the law actually goes.
We have at least two congressional investigations and an independent prosecutor who are looking into that "knowingly ask for" part, as we speak.
Stay tuned.
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law. So far, I've not seen any hard evidence of money being asked for or received, but we certainly don't have all the facts.
Of course Mueller may have a different perspective after fully investigating all the facts, but I'd not hold your breath while you wait for that result. Until Mueller is done, neither you nor I know anything for sure...
I've had trump loving friends reshare all kinds of weird Facebook pages that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere with stupid names like American Patriot Mom.
Depending on what you actually mean by "influencing elections" this is way too broad to be technically true. It is NOT illegal for them to do exercise influence (you couldn't enforce such a law anyway). Russia could start a conflict or propose a treaty that favored one candidate or another if they wish, the USA could make that illegal but there is no way to enforce that law, so it's worthless.
What IS illegal is for foreign entities to directly support a candidate, campaign or party or more to the point for candidates, campaigns and parties may not knowingly accept money or services from foreign sources. (I believe that PAC's and SUPER PAC's also have similar restrictions). The election laws prevent foreign funding of parties, campaigns or candidates but they cannot (and do not) prevent foreign influence in our elections.
If Russians want you to vote for a certain candidate, why does this matter?
Because it's been illegal for almost half a century.
How so?
First, you cannot stop them. Our laws don't apply on foreign soil. What the Russians do from over there is not going to stop if we make it illegal.
Second, I believe that you are talking about foreign participation in our elections. Where candidates and campaigns may not knowingly ask for or accept *resources* (money, services) from foreign sources, that's about as far as the law actually goes.
The big problem for your "It's been illegal" is that you cannot curb free speech within the country, and that means you cannot stop foreign interests from supporting local causes THROUGH citizens any more than you can stop PAC's from buying ads.
So Accepting material support from foreign countries IS and has been illegal for campaigns and candidates, you cannot stop foreign involvement.
It's like McCarthy is back to switch the lights on and the cockroaches are running for cover. We've got to find and exterminate the Russians!
Are we SURE we want to do this folks? This kind of thing really doesn't work out so well... The Salem witch trials, McCarthy's search for communists, they all turned into blots on our history. If we are really out there shaming anybody and everybody who has any kind of real or imagined connection to the Russians, we will find that anybody and everybody will be subject to scrutiny. Is that where you want to go?
Also, be warned that this is how the Nazi's got started politically and turned the whole "protect us from the Russians" idea into a cottage industry that brought us into WW2. Think long and hard about the politics in play here and who keeps pushing this. We are on dangerous ground when Twitter and Facebook feel it necessary to do this kind of thing to save face.
Trump approves and rolls out the same in the US. Now everyone can be a reality TV star!
Like they are not already TV stars in their minds.... Have you see the self absorbed "LOOK AT ME" stuff on Instagram, U-Tube and Facebook lately? There is a whole world of people who think their everyday lives are somehow interesting to others.
I'm always shaking my head... No, even if you are my sister in law, I'm not the least bit interested in what you had for dinner and if it was on your latest diet or not... Tell it to my brother, I bet he doesn't care either.
Sure, Got to make a profit on those 5,000 salaries.... That means selling stuff and services....
Still, it's got to be more than Alexa as a sales portal... ("Alexa, Please get me some TP, I'm stuck here until you do!").... They have got to be planning some kind of value added service or something... My question is What?
Seriously? 5,000 on staff for that thing? Something is seriously wrong here because I cannot imagine needing that many people for a project like this. What are all these folks doing? Certainly not just Alexa system development. What else are they doing?
One problem with "self analysis" is that you are prone to the logical problem of "confirmation bias". You are going to see what you want to see.
If you start out biased, then try to investigate if you are biased or not, chances are you will discover that you are NOT biased. The only way Facebook would find themselves biased is if they had set out to be biased up front and agreed to admit to it.
I don't think they set out to be biased and didn't intend to favor one side over the other, but I do believe that they ended up biased towards Mark's social and political views. They simply couldn't help it. So, I don't expect them to find any bias because who wants to admit to this?
I always thought Tesla for the masses was a bad idea. EV's just don't have the necessary range yet and with oil being under $60 bbl they cannot make any financial sense. Heck, even with all the tax incentives they just didn't make much sense in the USA.
They where, however, a great way to assuage one's guilt about spewing CO2 into the atmosphere (only they really don't), show you care about the environment by spending a boat load of money on a cool toy and show your rich friends you are not afraid of spending more, to save the world...
They are cool cars for those who can afford them and have short enough commutes to make them work, but that's not me...
LOL.. So it's bash Trump now that Hillary's history..
To use your logic...(and quote Hillary) "What difference at this point does it make?" Hillary lost, Trump won... Why do you still want to argue that fact?
I see that AC hasn't actually taken the time to read the book I suggest...
There are plenty of working methodologies for project management, some even work... (smile)... Brooks doesn't prescribe any specific method of project management, he only describes what to watch out for and why the problem isn't as easy as it first seems, why there is no "silver bullet" to be had. The issues with most PM techniques and technical development processes remains the same as Brooks describes, even though we've changed the names and technologies involved.
In my experience the *real* issue with Project Management is that it is rarely part of the original recipe. Effective PM processes take commitment, work, time and resources and are rarely part of the initial project's planning. What happens is the need for PM suddenly becomes apparent when deadlines and requirements start to slip and management suddenly decides they need to do something. What results is a rush to institute some kind of PM process, that necessarily disrupts the project because now you've added work to the guys in the trenches. They now have to do all their previous work (which is already behind schedule) AND all the reporting and process wickets required by the PM process being mandated. This kind of thing often happens when some small program gains some success, then grows more complex as the need for it grows. The PM process for some small project, doesn't usually support a large development team, but nobody realizes this until it's too late.
There are some really good project management techniques out there, but you have to START the program using them, or suffer lots of pain retrofitting your process to use them. It's hard work...
Usually... The goal is to avoid getting "management to help" you with your project, because their favorite tool for a late project is to throw resources at it and ask you for time wasting progress reports.
Attention, All, Attention. Because this project is behind schedule we will be requiring hourly status reports, unless status improves!
Fredrick Brooks was right.... There is no silver bullet (unless you bring your own from home).
This should be required reading once a year for ALL direct and indirect management of any engineering or software development team.
Again with the "Oh, Look at what I found, managing complex tasks is hard!" How many times will we be blessed with the same insight that Mr. Brooks put on paper way back in the 1970's? My guess is "just once more!"
Oh please... I listened to Comey's testimony before congress and his 45 min statement he made when he let Hillary skate before he later re-opened the investigation... Surely you recall all that? Everything I'm claiming as fact here Comey said himself.
So.. Do you not trust Comey here? Are his statements untrue in your view? She broke the law, Comey said so. He then let her off the hook...
Also, WikiLeaks isn't a suitable source of evidence for much of anything. Where I don't know if what they publish is true or not, from a legal prospective it's content is useless as any kind of evidence. Why does it's content matter? I'm not quoting it.
Then you are advocating that there should be a law or regulation to protect consumers from such stupidity, like the DOT's regulations keep you from selling vehicles which don't meet their safety standards.... Call your representatives and get that started.
However, in this case, the judge did the right thing in dismissing the case.
"You have no evidence of damages?"
"No sir."
"Then there is nothing to decide here, no damages to collect from D-Link.... Case Dismissed! Come back when you have evidence."
There will be zero nukes traded with the USA and DPRK... Trust me... There may be bullets, mortars, and other conventional kinetic weapons used, but no nukes.
First, DPRK may have blown a couple of holes in a mountain or two using nuclear devices and flown a ICBM into the pacific ocean, but they've not demonstrated the ability to put the two things together. They are getting close, but it's still no cigar for Little Kim if he decides to pop a nuke. I doubt he can, yet....
Second DPRK simply cannot have that many nukes to set off. They might manage two or three, but I don't see that they have enough infrastructure to have enough material for more. Of course, somebody may be shipping the stuff to them so who really knows, but something tells me Little Kim basically has a small arsenal of nuclear gravity bombs and no air force that can deliver them... Yet...
I'm guessing that this will play out as follows: Trading verbal insults will continue in this tit for tat exchange, with DPRK getting more and more ridiculous in their rhetoric in their attempts to "one up" Trump. But this is a valid tactic by Trump. He realizes that Kim has a big problem staying in power, and should Kim lose face with his people, even a small percentage of them, he's going to be forced to start taking big chances and eventually he will make a big mistake. The natives will be getting restless. Then when you couple the *real* actions Trump is taking in isolating DPRK in the financial and trade areas, Kim's military will be in an ever lower and lower level or readiness, lacking food, fuel and other necessary supplies.
This *might* go badly if somebody in the north pulls the trigger and starts the shooting war, but DPRK won't last a day on their own. Regime change will likely be the end of it, well that and the rebuilding contracts....:) China and Russia can mess this up of course, but I doubt they will risk a shooting war with the USA if the DPRK is not made part of South Korea.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you design a system that's going to catch such attempts to bypass the checks, if not today, eventually. Punish those who get caught trying game the system.
You can greatly reduce such things by making it take two or more persons to sacrifice their ethics to do so. Rotate the responsibility for cross checking regularly and you make it even harder to find a group of people willing to participate. Sure, you and your buddy might be able to fool the system, for awhile, but eventually you both get found out.
So gaming the system may not be prevented, but you can design the system to catch such things eventually.
Touché
Chart, map... Not many know the difference..
Good navigators ALWAYS have a map out with their last known position and expected flight path marked on it. I don't care WHO you are or what kind of navigation system you have, good practice demands that a pilot keep situational awareness as sharp as possible, meaning that you are keeping track of where you are, the status of your equipment and where the nearest emergency diversion airfield might be.
However, there ARE ways to enforce accuracy.... Make the bridge crew enter their manual position observations and calculations and then routinely judge the accuracy of the manual log with the automatic position logs. If there are variances, they will need to be explained. If you are not accurate enough with your manual entries, you don't keep your qualification.
I always wondered why the Navy gave up the celestial navigation qualification requirement. Never made sense to me.
LOL.. Really? The USA is a bad actor? I think history has another view of this.
Think about it. What *could* the USA do if it wanted too? We spend more money on our military than more than half the world does. We can literally project military power *anyplace* we choose for any reason we want. Now tell me again how the USA is a bad actor in the world...
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we've always done the right thing by everyone, we haven't, or that we've not inserted ourselves into local and regional conflicts where we've not really belonged, but I AM telling you that our intentions are NOT to do harm, but good. We are not always successful, but we mean well.
IF we really wanted to do bad things or act selfishly, there would be little to stop us. We could own all of Japan, most of Europe, and any place we wanted to acquire. But that's not what we do. Historically, we have shed our own blood for the cause of freedom for others, and after conquering territory on behalf of others, promptly returned it to it's previous owners asking for nothing in return. No other country in history has been so dominate, yet so willing to live and let live.
Perhaps, but this is only illegal if the campaign ASKED for this ad campaign on Facebook. The campaign is NOT liable for activities of others unless they are directly requesting such actions.
So the fact that a Facebook campaign was purchased by some foreign entity is not prima facie proof of an illegal activity. You MUST also prove that the campaign asked for this to be done.
The technology used might be new, but the technique is not. It's called propaganda and it's been used since the dawn of time.
The defense for propaganda is not to suppress it (because you really can't), but to educate the people targeted by it in the truth so they recognize propaganda when they see it. The problem we face is that we've been fighting propaganda with propaganda of our own and now the masses don't understand what the truth is. It's so bad that the media in our country, the very institution that's supposed to be speaking truth, has largely become full of propaganda and bereft of facts and critical thinking.
What evidence do we have of this? The most current example is how the last presidential election was being forecasted on November 8th. NOBODY though Hillary would/could lose. Why is that? Where the polls wrong? Yes they were, very wrong in some cases. Even the exit polling was wrong. Think about why this was and tell me the media was doing it's job with a straight face....
We have at least two congressional investigations and an independent prosecutor who are looking into that "knowingly ask for" part, as we speak.
Stay tuned.
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law. So far, I've not seen any hard evidence of money being asked for or received, but we certainly don't have all the facts.
Of course Mueller may have a different perspective after fully investigating all the facts, but I'd not hold your breath while you wait for that result. Until Mueller is done, neither you nor I know anything for sure...
No it's illegal to influence elections
I've had trump loving friends reshare all kinds of weird Facebook pages that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere with stupid names like American Patriot Mom.
Depending on what you actually mean by "influencing elections" this is way too broad to be technically true. It is NOT illegal for them to do exercise influence (you couldn't enforce such a law anyway). Russia could start a conflict or propose a treaty that favored one candidate or another if they wish, the USA could make that illegal but there is no way to enforce that law, so it's worthless.
What IS illegal is for foreign entities to directly support a candidate, campaign or party or more to the point for candidates, campaigns and parties may not knowingly accept money or services from foreign sources. (I believe that PAC's and SUPER PAC's also have similar restrictions). The election laws prevent foreign funding of parties, campaigns or candidates but they cannot (and do not) prevent foreign influence in our elections.
So let's be precise here.....
Because it's been illegal for almost half a century.
How so?
First, you cannot stop them. Our laws don't apply on foreign soil. What the Russians do from over there is not going to stop if we make it illegal.
Second, I believe that you are talking about foreign participation in our elections. Where candidates and campaigns may not knowingly ask for or accept *resources* (money, services) from foreign sources, that's about as far as the law actually goes.
The big problem for your "It's been illegal" is that you cannot curb free speech within the country, and that means you cannot stop foreign interests from supporting local causes THROUGH citizens any more than you can stop PAC's from buying ads.
So Accepting material support from foreign countries IS and has been illegal for campaigns and candidates, you cannot stop foreign involvement.
It's like McCarthy is back to switch the lights on and the cockroaches are running for cover. We've got to find and exterminate the Russians!
Are we SURE we want to do this folks? This kind of thing really doesn't work out so well... The Salem witch trials, McCarthy's search for communists, they all turned into blots on our history. If we are really out there shaming anybody and everybody who has any kind of real or imagined connection to the Russians, we will find that anybody and everybody will be subject to scrutiny. Is that where you want to go?
Also, be warned that this is how the Nazi's got started politically and turned the whole "protect us from the Russians" idea into a cottage industry that brought us into WW2. Think long and hard about the politics in play here and who keeps pushing this. We are on dangerous ground when Twitter and Facebook feel it necessary to do this kind of thing to save face.
I think using past tense is a bad choice here.... I'm just guessing here but I'm pretty sure they ARE doing it NOW... That makes it present tense...
Trump approves and rolls out the same in the US. Now everyone can be a reality TV star!
Like they are not already TV stars in their minds.... Have you see the self absorbed "LOOK AT ME" stuff on Instagram, U-Tube and Facebook lately? There is a whole world of people who think their everyday lives are somehow interesting to others.
I'm always shaking my head... No, even if you are my sister in law, I'm not the least bit interested in what you had for dinner and if it was on your latest diet or not... Tell it to my brother, I bet he doesn't care either.
Sure, Got to make a profit on those 5,000 salaries.... That means selling stuff and services....
Still, it's got to be more than Alexa as a sales portal... ("Alexa, Please get me some TP, I'm stuck here until you do!") .... They have got to be planning some kind of value added service or something... My question is What?
Let's throw more developers at it! (management)
Seriously? 5,000 on staff for that thing? Something is seriously wrong here because I cannot imagine needing that many people for a project like this. What are all these folks doing? Certainly not just Alexa system development. What else are they doing?
One problem with "self analysis" is that you are prone to the logical problem of "confirmation bias". You are going to see what you want to see.
If you start out biased, then try to investigate if you are biased or not, chances are you will discover that you are NOT biased. The only way Facebook would find themselves biased is if they had set out to be biased up front and agreed to admit to it.
I don't think they set out to be biased and didn't intend to favor one side over the other, but I do believe that they ended up biased towards Mark's social and political views. They simply couldn't help it. So, I don't expect them to find any bias because who wants to admit to this?
Every man is right in his own eyes...
I always thought Tesla for the masses was a bad idea. EV's just don't have the necessary range yet and with oil being under $60 bbl they cannot make any financial sense. Heck, even with all the tax incentives they just didn't make much sense in the USA.
They where, however, a great way to assuage one's guilt about spewing CO2 into the atmosphere (only they really don't), show you care about the environment by spending a boat load of money on a cool toy and show your rich friends you are not afraid of spending more, to save the world...
They are cool cars for those who can afford them and have short enough commutes to make them work, but that's not me...
LOL.. So it's bash Trump now that Hillary's history..
To use your logic...(and quote Hillary) "What difference at this point does it make?" Hillary lost, Trump won... Why do you still want to argue that fact?
(QED)
I see that AC hasn't actually taken the time to read the book I suggest...
There are plenty of working methodologies for project management, some even work... (smile) ... Brooks doesn't prescribe any specific method of project management, he only describes what to watch out for and why the problem isn't as easy as it first seems, why there is no "silver bullet" to be had. The issues with most PM techniques and technical development processes remains the same as Brooks describes, even though we've changed the names and technologies involved.
In my experience the *real* issue with Project Management is that it is rarely part of the original recipe. Effective PM processes take commitment, work, time and resources and are rarely part of the initial project's planning. What happens is the need for PM suddenly becomes apparent when deadlines and requirements start to slip and management suddenly decides they need to do something. What results is a rush to institute some kind of PM process, that necessarily disrupts the project because now you've added work to the guys in the trenches. They now have to do all their previous work (which is already behind schedule) AND all the reporting and process wickets required by the PM process being mandated. This kind of thing often happens when some small program gains some success, then grows more complex as the need for it grows. The PM process for some small project, doesn't usually support a large development team, but nobody realizes this until it's too late.
There are some really good project management techniques out there, but you have to START the program using them, or suffer lots of pain retrofitting your process to use them. It's hard work...
Usually... The goal is to avoid getting "management to help" you with your project, because their favorite tool for a late project is to throw resources at it and ask you for time wasting progress reports.
Attention, All, Attention. Because this project is behind schedule we will be requiring hourly status reports, unless status improves!
Fredrick Brooks was right.... There is no silver bullet (unless you bring your own from home).
"The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks.
This should be required reading once a year for ALL direct and indirect management of any engineering or software development team.
Again with the "Oh, Look at what I found, managing complex tasks is hard!" How many times will we be blessed with the same insight that Mr. Brooks put on paper way back in the 1970's? My guess is "just once more!"
Oh please... I listened to Comey's testimony before congress and his 45 min statement he made when he let Hillary skate before he later re-opened the investigation... Surely you recall all that? Everything I'm claiming as fact here Comey said himself.
So.. Do you not trust Comey here? Are his statements untrue in your view? She broke the law, Comey said so. He then let her off the hook...
Also, WikiLeaks isn't a suitable source of evidence for much of anything. Where I don't know if what they publish is true or not, from a legal prospective it's content is useless as any kind of evidence. Why does it's content matter? I'm not quoting it.
Then you are advocating that there should be a law or regulation to protect consumers from such stupidity, like the DOT's regulations keep you from selling vehicles which don't meet their safety standards.... Call your representatives and get that started.
However, in this case, the judge did the right thing in dismissing the case.
"You have no evidence of damages?"
"No sir."
"Then there is nothing to decide here, no damages to collect from D-Link.... Case Dismissed! Come back when you have evidence."
Understand?
There will be zero nukes traded with the USA and DPRK... Trust me... There may be bullets, mortars, and other conventional kinetic weapons used, but no nukes.
First, DPRK may have blown a couple of holes in a mountain or two using nuclear devices and flown a ICBM into the pacific ocean, but they've not demonstrated the ability to put the two things together. They are getting close, but it's still no cigar for Little Kim if he decides to pop a nuke. I doubt he can, yet....
Second DPRK simply cannot have that many nukes to set off. They might manage two or three, but I don't see that they have enough infrastructure to have enough material for more. Of course, somebody may be shipping the stuff to them so who really knows, but something tells me Little Kim basically has a small arsenal of nuclear gravity bombs and no air force that can deliver them... Yet...
I'm guessing that this will play out as follows: Trading verbal insults will continue in this tit for tat exchange, with DPRK getting more and more ridiculous in their rhetoric in their attempts to "one up" Trump. But this is a valid tactic by Trump. He realizes that Kim has a big problem staying in power, and should Kim lose face with his people, even a small percentage of them, he's going to be forced to start taking big chances and eventually he will make a big mistake. The natives will be getting restless. Then when you couple the *real* actions Trump is taking in isolating DPRK in the financial and trade areas, Kim's military will be in an ever lower and lower level or readiness, lacking food, fuel and other necessary supplies.
This *might* go badly if somebody in the north pulls the trigger and starts the shooting war, but DPRK won't last a day on their own. Regime change will likely be the end of it, well that and the rebuilding contracts.... :) China and Russia can mess this up of course, but I doubt they will risk a shooting war with the USA if the DPRK is not made part of South Korea.
Yea, like big donors don't get hired by both parties when they are in power. It's politics, get used to it.
It's not like the secretary of Education is all that big of a deal....