Does anybody really think that Apple doesn't know their market?
Does anybody think Google and Amazon and Facebook don't know what users want?
Just because the heads of these companies are male doesn't mean they don't know how to women.
But that's an overestimate. Your words form a sentence with.proper grammar so you shouldn't really found each word as 10 bits. Has anybody studied the average entropy of sentences?
If your password is subject to.more than one guess per second the system is already pwned. The most important thing is not to have super secure passwords but to protect the system so the crackers can't get access to the hash files in the first place.
If the crackers have your hash files, what else do they have?
If the tax were at a very low rate (say a 1/10 penny per megabyte) it wouldn't affect most users much.
Suppose though that you taxed email at 1 cent per addressee? That wouldn't affect normal users much but would cost junk emailers enough that many untargeted junk emails would be stopped.
But administering a monitoring and collection system for internet usage taxes would be expensive. I don't think I wanted the government in the middle of every transaction.
The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.
And you don't think the brother is discriminating in favor of family and against all others in the workplace? You think lover is a magic category? I'm just asking. I don't know the answer. I don't know where the line is drawn. I just know that when you do start drawing lines of what is and what isn't discrimination, you are building a smug sense of entitlement in some and discontent in others.
But there are plenty of businesses that make no bones about being family businesses. In a family business, nepotism is the norm and expected and you don't expect to get an equal shot with the boss's brother or son.
These are electronic surveillance warrants, so I doubt there's anything like a one-to-one relationship between cases and warrants issued. I have no way of knowing what the ratio might be.
But let's take what might be a typical example of somebody who might be suspected of some such crime.
Here's a list of electronic services that might be monitored in connection to ONE person under investigation:
1 Your cell phone
1 Your home phone
1 Your work phone
3 Each of your three email personal email accounts
1 Your ISP (what sites have I been looking at?)
1 Facebook (who tagged you, what is their nationality, what have they said?)
1 Google (what sites have you been looking at, a different approach)
1 Linked In account
1 Slashdot account (I bet Slashdot complies with FISA warrants.)
1 your bank
Total for one person: maybe 10?
Now suppose they find something they find suspicious in one of the contacts you have in one of those places. (It would probably be Slashdot.) Now they go digging in to that person's life and issue another 10 warrants.
They come up empty. 20 warrants issued: everybody cleared. (Cause there are no spies on Slashdot.)
Here's another thing we don't know: what are the results of typical cases? Do half of them turn out to be nothing, in which case the number of investigations is probably justified. Or do only 10% of them turn up anything that looks like a security issue, in which case the number of investigations is probably unjustified?
If there's action, what's the usual action? It looks like it's not usually prosecution. But that doesn't mean it didn't turn up something useful. The FBI is very interested in knowing who the spies are and who they're talking to.
Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
As usual, press articles reflect shallow (or completely missing) understanding of scientific concepts. A better way to describe it would be to say, "Possible Asian Origin for Primates" and go on to describe the Asian animals as "possibly the most recent common ancestors of all primates."
Or to put it another way time is a metric that exists in the universe and just like space, it doesn't exist apart from the universe... as far as we can tell from in here.
Humans are physically pretty weird for primates. We're the only ones built for walking on two legs efficiently. The communication thing is one of degree as much as kind: many primates vocalize a lot and communicate a lot.
Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".
Or we're descended from the few who understood when one of the walking, talking apes came back into the forest and said, "DUDE! There's a whole f***ing WORLD out there!"
NLRB kinda sorta said what companies might should do; e.g. Don't be ambiguous. but they didn't exactly say how. Good work guys.
Sometimes you need to use a LITTLE imagination. They said that it was unlawful because it didn't except the Section 7 rights. If they had given a definition of "confidential information" that excepted Section 7 rights, that would have been fine.
Even better would be to prominently display the workers' rights under Section 7 at the beginning of the policy manual AND specifically except it from the definition of "confidential information."
Exactly. If you talk to the other contractors, you may find out that they're paying you way less than another contractor and then you know that you can renegotiate when the contract expires and likely get a better rate.
I am a manager and I agree with that. The valuable employees are not the ones who grouse about their pay or even worry much about it... because they're getting paid well. If I'm not happy with your work, you won't get a raise from me. Instead I'll be telling you what you need to fix to come up to snuff. But all my employees also get complimented when they do things right and rewards when they do them better than par.
Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.
If the employees are paid differently, there need to be visible reasons why, like qualifications, recognized quality of work, higher productivity, etc. When pay is perceived as FAIR, it doesn't cause resentment and in fact reinforces the motivations that you want in your employees. You want to be paid like Molly? Then turn out quality and quantity of work that match what Molly does.
If other employees knew that billybob the janitor was getting paid three times what they were, they would demand to know why, ad worse, demand better pay. Usually billybob gets that sweet reimbursement for his labor because of some dirty secret, like he's the boss's lover, brother, illegitimate son, whatever. All of which are clearly outright illegal.
The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.
Keeping people ignorant let's you get away with abuses of power. That's why they penalise people who share their information.
That at least is true, if you replace "let's" with "lets."
I don't CARE how many doubters there are for the same reason you don't care that there is a consensus that you don't agree with for whatever reason.
I do care about the reason for the consensus: that the evidence strongly supports the theory.
Due process? The people put on secret surveillance cannot defend themselves against those surveillance warrant. They can't go to court and attack the arguments of the police. There's judge oversight but not due process.
As for rule of law... Well there certainly aren't 30k terrorists in the USA. The people put on surveillance must then include criminals and innocent people. I'd love to see statistics on what crimes these 30k are accused of and how many of them do not get convicted (or their case never goes to trial to being with).
Your indignation appears to be based on misconceptions. First, the police never give you a chance to defend yourself before they get a warrant to search or surveil you. They get the warrant and the first you know about it, if you ever do, is when they show up to search your property or arrest you. So in that regard, these secret warrants are not greatly different from standard warrants. When getting a warrant, probable cause means establishing that there is substantial reason for suspicion that a crime has been committed and substantial reason to suspect that surveiling you will produce evidence relevant to the investigation. They don't need to suspect YOU of a crime.
The secrecy regarding these warrants has to do with the fact that there are (supposed) national security aspects to the proceedings, and if it became known that the FBI was investigating you, or the reason for which they are investigating you, that fact of itself might compromise the country's ability to carry out military operations, foreign surveillance, etc.
Probably few of these cases involve possible terrorism. They might involve espionage, military secrets, etc.
The consensus of experts in any field matters, not because they all agree, but because of the reasons that they agree. In science, experts agree because they have looked at the body of evidence, understand the theory and agree that the data strongly favor the theory being correct. When it comes to the final step of judging that the theory is or isn't well enough supported to accept, that's where there's room for individual judgment. It's OK that on most scientific theories, there are experts who doubt the prevailing theory. In fact, it's good, because that doubt becomes an impetus for new experiments, new evidence gathering and new analysis that contributes to the body of knowledge.
But the theoretic doubt of the occasional scientist is not the same thing as the widespread outright rejection and spurious declarations of doubt that you see on the part of people driven by political, ideological and religious agendas. They are not interested in the data, and largely don't care whether the theory is correct. They're more concerned with whether public acceptance of the theory undermines their agenda.
The science topics don't cause controversy. The controversy is caused by people who for religious and political reasons refuse to accept scientific evidence.
That is probably so. But this may not have anything to do with a reduction in good content. Maybe there is just as much good content out there, or even more, than there was in some Golden Age of our youth. But if there is, it has been swamped by the noise of 300 television channels that never show anything worthwhile and sandwiched between shows so awful that you can't even bear to see their names on the guide, let alone scorch your eyeballs if you should happen to see a few seconds of them while changing channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody really think that Apple doesn't know their market? Does anybody think Google and Amazon and Facebook don't know what users want? Just because the heads of these companies are male doesn't mean they don't know how to women.
Has there really been a survey to determine the ages and sexes of Slashdot users or do you all just assume everybody is young and male?
But if the password file is offline, your unencrypted data may be as well.
But that's an overestimate. Your words form a sentence with.proper grammar so you shouldn't really found each word as 10 bits. Has anybody studied the average entropy of sentences?
If your password is subject to.more than one guess per second the system is already pwned. The most important thing is not to have super secure passwords but to protect the system so the crackers can't get access to the hash files in the first place. If the crackers have your hash files, what else do they have?
If the tax were at a very low rate (say a 1/10 penny per megabyte) it wouldn't affect most users much. Suppose though that you taxed email at 1 cent per addressee? That wouldn't affect normal users much but would cost junk emailers enough that many untargeted junk emails would be stopped. But administering a monitoring and collection system for internet usage taxes would be expensive. I don't think I wanted the government in the middle of every transaction.
And why the fuck should that be accepted?
Because freedom to have a family business is in the interest of everybody who has a family, i.e. most of us.
And you don't think the brother is discriminating in favor of family and against all others in the workplace? You think lover is a magic category? I'm just asking. I don't know the answer. I don't know where the line is drawn. I just know that when you do start drawing lines of what is and what isn't discrimination, you are building a smug sense of entitlement in some and discontent in others.
But there are plenty of businesses that make no bones about being family businesses. In a family business, nepotism is the norm and expected and you don't expect to get an equal shot with the boss's brother or son.
Yeah, but that's not weird. We're the envy of apes everywhere. Or at least I am...
These are electronic surveillance warrants, so I doubt there's anything like a one-to-one relationship between cases and warrants issued. I have no way of knowing what the ratio might be.
But let's take what might be a typical example of somebody who might be suspected of some such crime.
Total for one person: maybe 10? Now suppose they find something they find suspicious in one of the contacts you have in one of those places. (It would probably be Slashdot.) Now they go digging in to that person's life and issue another 10 warrants.
They come up empty. 20 warrants issued: everybody cleared. (Cause there are no spies on Slashdot.)
Here's another thing we don't know: what are the results of typical cases? Do half of them turn out to be nothing, in which case the number of investigations is probably justified. Or do only 10% of them turn up anything that looks like a security issue, in which case the number of investigations is probably unjustified?
If there's action, what's the usual action? It looks like it's not usually prosecution. But that doesn't mean it didn't turn up something useful. The FBI is very interested in knowing who the spies are and who they're talking to.
Yeah, but why would you want to run Linux through a Microsoft cloud server? That's the big mystery.
Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
As usual, press articles reflect shallow (or completely missing) understanding of scientific concepts. A better way to describe it would be to say, "Possible Asian Origin for Primates" and go on to describe the Asian animals as "possibly the most recent common ancestors of all primates."
Or to put it another way time is a metric that exists in the universe and just like space, it doesn't exist apart from the universe... as far as we can tell from in here.
Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".
Or we're descended from the few who understood when one of the walking, talking apes came back into the forest and said, "DUDE! There's a whole f***ing WORLD out there!"
NLRB kinda sorta said what companies might should do; e.g. Don't be ambiguous. but they didn't exactly say how. Good work guys.
Sometimes you need to use a LITTLE imagination. They said that it was unlawful because it didn't except the Section 7 rights. If they had given a definition of "confidential information" that excepted Section 7 rights, that would have been fine. Even better would be to prominently display the workers' rights under Section 7 at the beginning of the policy manual AND specifically except it from the definition of "confidential information."
Exactly. If you talk to the other contractors, you may find out that they're paying you way less than another contractor and then you know that you can renegotiate when the contract expires and likely get a better rate.
I am a manager and I agree with that. The valuable employees are not the ones who grouse about their pay or even worry much about it... because they're getting paid well. If I'm not happy with your work, you won't get a raise from me. Instead I'll be telling you what you need to fix to come up to snuff. But all my employees also get complimented when they do things right and rewards when they do them better than par.
Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.
If the employees are paid differently, there need to be visible reasons why, like qualifications, recognized quality of work, higher productivity, etc. When pay is perceived as FAIR, it doesn't cause resentment and in fact reinforces the motivations that you want in your employees. You want to be paid like Molly? Then turn out quality and quantity of work that match what Molly does.
If other employees knew that billybob the janitor was getting paid three times what they were, they would demand to know why, ad worse, demand better pay. Usually billybob gets that sweet reimbursement for his labor because of some dirty secret, like he's the boss's lover, brother, illegitimate son, whatever. All of which are clearly outright illegal.
The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.
Keeping people ignorant let's you get away with abuses of power. That's why they penalise people who share their information.
That at least is true, if you replace "let's" with "lets."
It sounds like a great way to add cost to your smart phone.
I don't CARE how many doubters there are for the same reason you don't care that there is a consensus that you don't agree with for whatever reason. I do care about the reason for the consensus: that the evidence strongly supports the theory.
Due process? The people put on secret surveillance cannot defend themselves against those surveillance warrant. They can't go to court and attack the arguments of the police. There's judge oversight but not due process.
As for rule of law... Well there certainly aren't 30k terrorists in the USA. The people put on surveillance must then include criminals and innocent people. I'd love to see statistics on what crimes these 30k are accused of and how many of them do not get convicted (or their case never goes to trial to being with).
Your indignation appears to be based on misconceptions. First, the police never give you a chance to defend yourself before they get a warrant to search or surveil you. They get the warrant and the first you know about it, if you ever do, is when they show up to search your property or arrest you. So in that regard, these secret warrants are not greatly different from standard warrants. When getting a warrant, probable cause means establishing that there is substantial reason for suspicion that a crime has been committed and substantial reason to suspect that surveiling you will produce evidence relevant to the investigation. They don't need to suspect YOU of a crime.
The secrecy regarding these warrants has to do with the fact that there are (supposed) national security aspects to the proceedings, and if it became known that the FBI was investigating you, or the reason for which they are investigating you, that fact of itself might compromise the country's ability to carry out military operations, foreign surveillance, etc.
Probably few of these cases involve possible terrorism. They might involve espionage, military secrets, etc.
The consensus of experts in any field matters, not because they all agree, but because of the reasons that they agree. In science, experts agree because they have looked at the body of evidence, understand the theory and agree that the data strongly favor the theory being correct. When it comes to the final step of judging that the theory is or isn't well enough supported to accept, that's where there's room for individual judgment. It's OK that on most scientific theories, there are experts who doubt the prevailing theory. In fact, it's good, because that doubt becomes an impetus for new experiments, new evidence gathering and new analysis that contributes to the body of knowledge.
But the theoretic doubt of the occasional scientist is not the same thing as the widespread outright rejection and spurious declarations of doubt that you see on the part of people driven by political, ideological and religious agendas. They are not interested in the data, and largely don't care whether the theory is correct. They're more concerned with whether public acceptance of the theory undermines their agenda.
The science topics don't cause controversy. The controversy is caused by people who for religious and political reasons refuse to accept scientific evidence.
That is probably so. But this may not have anything to do with a reduction in good content. Maybe there is just as much good content out there, or even more, than there was in some Golden Age of our youth. But if there is, it has been swamped by the noise of 300 television channels that never show anything worthwhile and sandwiched between shows so awful that you can't even bear to see their names on the guide, let alone scorch your eyeballs if you should happen to see a few seconds of them while changing channels.