.....of why IT nerds should refrain from talking about law. And the chuckles that wrote this "article" is no different.
To wit (this is but one example):
""Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'"
Yes. Go look at the "statement against party interest" exception to the heresay rule. Then go watch a criminal trial and you will see the police do *exactly* that.
The author here in too uneducated to make the refuations he is trying to make nor is he showing the drive necessary to gain knowledge that would answer his question for him.
And of course not long thereafter will come the financial incentives, cajoling, and outright threats necessary to ink a "deal" that the malware companies will not detect CIA and NSA wares.
I would certainly hope that McAfee et al would not be dumb enough to jump into bed with the devil, but sadly that may be more wishful thinking than anything.
This is just one user's opinion, but slow gradual declines seem to be the hallmark of Google projects. They work well when they're shiny and new, but over time the projects are neglected and deteriorate. Similar things have happened with Google Voice and Google Docs.
OP didn't say manipulated. It said "price fixed". Big difference there.
The bond market of which you speak (and the financial markets in general) can be gamed by conglomerates of individual entities. However the prime difference here is that these combinations affect the *secondary market* and are *not* related to the companies that float the bonds. That is, the company that floated the bond does not benefit directly from any support the security receives in the secondary market.
E-books on the other hand are different. The publishers attempted to directly price fix what was charged for their product at the point of primary sale. This of course resulted in additional profits directly into their pocket. It is a different scenario from securities.
Mod this up.
I too would like OP to explain how the oil industry sets about mandating price on the fungible commodity that they sell. I'm not saying the commodity market is rational, mind you. I'm just saying if a producer tried to strong arm these kinds of tactics, the market buyers would respond with a very loud and heartfelt FOAD.
The point of the article is that if you want to rise to CIO, you have to understand the company and how its buisness operates. This means having to transition from skills that are helpful in IT (detailed oriented micro thinking) to skills that are used in business (macro based "big picture" thinking). The article says not to use jargon because managers at the high echelons do not care about the nuts and bolts of how something gets done. They care about the end result and other non-technical drivers (cost, ROI, etc).
Understand, these are typically skills that do not make for a good IT worker. Someone good at IT is detail oriented and laser focused on specific tasks. It is difficult training one's brain to think in a different manner. And in the IT real, people are quick to discount those who don't think as they do. The sad part is those that "think differently" in this case happen to be those who sign the paychecks.
FTA:
"This isn't because I don't have positions that need filling. On the contrary, I'm constantly searching for talented new employees, and if someone with the right skills walked into my office, he or she would likely leave it with a very compelling offer. The problem is that the right skills are very hard to find. And I'm sorry to say it, dear graduates, but you probably don't have them."
-----
The downside of having said programming skills if you could be conned into working for a total douche-nozzle like this.
Also, this dude is very high on himself and what he's doing. "Next potential dream boss"? "Cool and interesting" company with "interesting and rewarding" work? Bro, you sell internet ads. Your "interesting and rewarding" work is trying to find new and innovative ways to piss me off while I'm looking at Ebay and surifing for porn. Let's not get carried away here.
Nowhere in the parent post do I read that there are problems with his code not working. In fact the phrase "far from elegant" really does tell the tale.
The true "problem" here is obvious: The product isn't being done the way *you* think it should. It is admirable that you have these standards, but in the "real world" one has to work on a continum between time and budget.
Also, the author complains that 1) the code is not up to his stanadards, yet 2) he doesn't feel he should have to make it so.
If you wish for the coding to be done your way, then you will need to invest the extra time to do it. Otherwise accept that "functional = good enough" and drive on.
The principal seemed to understand what happened and didn't think it was a big deal. From the articles posted it seems to me that it was the School Resource Officer that made the call to turn this into a criminal matter, which makes sense as these officers face the same pressure as other LEOs to make arrests and "justify their existence".
This is why cops need not be stationed in schools.
Or, you know, people could still use it to, oh let's see... play games?
I doubt that the networking features are the most used aspects of these consoles.
Use a console to actually play a game?? Who the hell does that anymore? If I can't use it to surf facebook while checking CNN and controlling my home security system, I ain't interested.
(Satire, true. A shame, maybe. None the less your point is an antiquated view of the current state and direction of consoles)
So you deny that there is penetration involved as part of the test?
Let's jam the probe partially up your ass and look for signs of a brain......my guess is we won't find one.
'The whole concept of security awareness training demonstrates how the computer industry has failed. We should be designing systems that won't let users choose lousy passwords and don't care what links a user clicks on,'
----
Uh huh. And when the owner / C level individual comes over and says he wants his password to be "airplane" because that's the only one he has ever used and he's not remembering a new one, what would Bruce Schneier tell them? No? Fuck you?
What you call a "libertarian ben" I merely call "distrust of law enforcement". Texas to this day is one of the hardest states to get a conviction in because of all the pro-defendant protections built into the system. Texas law on confessions, searches by third parties, warrantless arrests, and search warrants are all *way* stricter than the Federal Constitution requires. I see this cell phone bill as another step in that direction.
And since you mentioned it:
Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure. And the Planned Parenthood nonsense going on in this state is further afield of any Libertarian bent.
Obama is playing longball. By doing it Obama's way it's a two-fer because we would drain the smartest and most motivated from our competitors and then use them in *our* workforce.
Think of it in evolution terms as injecting new competitive genes into the genepool.
RACIST! You imply that a bunch of young Hispanic or black or Asian women would perform more competently if running the government. There's nothing about being old or white or being a man that makes a government employee bad...they can do a terrible job in all shapes, sizes, colors, sexes and ages.
You're willing to sit there and argue that the overwhelming effects of policies coming out of Washington (at least until 2009, sorta) *don't* primarily serve the interests of rich old white men?
But, I'll play the racist game. Am I suggesting that a more minority split government would be at least a little hesitant to buy the wholesale claims of fear eminninating from government today? You bet your ass.
It is not racism to suggest that different ethnic groups in this country see authority in different ways. (And I'm a middle-upper class white dude lawyer!)
If even somewhat true, this is the kind of thing that will usher in a new era of network surveillance and the kind of restrictions that will kill a formerly free Internet. Governments will have much more incentive to get involved in the standards drafting process in order to ensure "proper adherence" to national security "requests" etc.
I hope I'm wrong, but having seen how people go apeshit with simple "point and click" technologies like guns.......let's see what happens when you get a bunch of old white guys with power trying to lock down things they *truly* don't understand.
The starvation rate in the US is staggeringly low (theres not even a statistic for "starved", they lump it in with "died of exposure"), and the people who starve are not people who could remotely enter the work force. The large majority of them are elderly and die because they are unable to care for themselves; the remainder are generally either mentally ill, or are too young to care for themselves.
I challenge you to find either by name or by statistic anyone in the US who, though employable, starved due to unemployment. I would challenge you to even find a solid statistic of how many people starve annually in the US; as far as I can tell it too low to track.
I noticed you dodged the first part fo the condition: "unemployed".
Doing so and ignoring that part of the pre-condition pretty much renders your comment non-sequitur.
But to respond to your point, no the U.S. does not have the same starvation issues that other shitholes around the world have. But you're obtusely ignoring the fact that employment affects the cases of hunger that do exist here, such as caretakers for elderly and children being able to find jobs.
Because "all people are created equal.... and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" leaves no room in my mind for "except people from other countries". Because it seems remarkably cold to bitch about "fat cats on wall street" on your ipad twitter account as millions of potential workers in india live in abject poverty.
And since when did "immigrating to American to take a good paying job" become an inalienable right?
Nowhere in any of the above statements do you even suggest that those getting the H1-B visas are the better qualified workers. You're advocating the program as a way to lift others out of poverty in other countries and just about came out and said so. Fuck that. It is not a sentiment that is often expressed out loud anymore, but we have our own job base here that needs attending to.
Don't like it? Then advise the "millions of potential workers in India in abject poverty" to pick up some pitchforks and be agents of change within their own government. There simply isn't enough to go around.
It seems to me that a more "open" workforce market can only be a good thing if it breaks down the barriers that allow companies in India, China, wherever to offer work for a pittance, when those workers can just go to another country and get a better living wage.
----
1) Why should I care about the "barriers" and wages of other countries when there are people unemployed and starving here?
2) Why should we help these other countries reform their own labor practices at our expense?
The H1-B is suppose to assist companies in filling gaps when the local labor pool cannot provide. It was *intended* to be an "America First" solution. Instead it has been co-opted as a way to keep labor costs down rather than paying IT talent what the market demands.
They may have initially chosen all-you-can-eat, but it's entirely their prerogative to change that at any point in time (barring regulation by the FCC). If they think they can increase profits by going to a tiered model then I applaud them for doing so.
The point of this article isn't outrage over model change, it's that one of the very people who was tasked with regulating this kind of stuff is now saying "Yea, you guys were right all along.
Also, these users aren't "getting more out of it". They are using a service they *paid for*. As in what they were contracted to receive. Now some providers want to change the deal because they didn't have the forsight to anticipate how their agreement would be utilized. What's the point of having a contract then?
Look, they can change their future pricing models any time they wish. Fine. But don't sit there like an obtuse Slashdot user and pretend that the industry didn't outright lie to the FCC to get the changes approved. Then don't sit there and again obtusely pretend that the very Chairman that "believed" the lie wasn't hired on to lobby for the industry.
It seems that if bandwidth has very little cost to the provider then a given provider could differentiate itself as the haven for heavy users, moving to a flat-rate pricing model that's moderately more expensive than what its competitors is charging for "normal use" but significantly cheaper than what a "heavy user" would pay once he goes over the competition's bandwidth caps and starts paying by-the-byte. All heavy users would migrate to this provider. His cost to provide all the extra bandwidth would be only marginally higher than if all his users were "normal", but each one of them would be paying premium over what his competitors end up charging to 99% of their customers (who are not "heavy users").
After reading the above the issue here is obvious: You don't know your history. The communications industry is well known for "unofficial" collusion and price fixing. In your freshman level econ utopia, yes the above is how it would work. In Real World, USA there is no differentiation. All ISPs buy from the same handful of upstream providers that charge uniform rates. Choice of consumer level provider (if it exists at all in your area) is limited because everyone has colluded to offer the same plans with some slightly different window dressing.
As long as you subscribe to the incorrect view that competition in the communications industry exists (here in regards to ISPs) then naturally you will see nothing wrong with these new pricing models.
Slashdot Mirror
.....of why IT nerds should refrain from talking about law. And the chuckles that wrote this "article" is no different.
To wit (this is but one example): ""Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'"
Yes. Go look at the "statement against party interest" exception to the heresay rule. Then go watch a criminal trial and you will see the police do *exactly* that.
The author here in too uneducated to make the refuations he is trying to make nor is he showing the drive necessary to gain knowledge that would answer his question for him.
And of course not long thereafter will come the financial incentives, cajoling, and outright threats necessary to ink a "deal" that the malware companies will not detect CIA and NSA wares.
I would certainly hope that McAfee et al would not be dumb enough to jump into bed with the devil, but sadly that may be more wishful thinking than anything.
This is just one user's opinion, but slow gradual declines seem to be the hallmark of Google projects. They work well when they're shiny and new, but over time the projects are neglected and deteriorate. Similar things have happened with Google Voice and Google Docs.
OP didn't say manipulated. It said "price fixed". Big difference there.
The bond market of which you speak (and the financial markets in general) can be gamed by conglomerates of individual entities. However the prime difference here is that these combinations affect the *secondary market* and are *not* related to the companies that float the bonds. That is, the company that floated the bond does not benefit directly from any support the security receives in the secondary market.
E-books on the other hand are different. The publishers attempted to directly price fix what was charged for their product at the point of primary sale. This of course resulted in additional profits directly into their pocket. It is a different scenario from securities.
Mod this up.
I too would like OP to explain how the oil industry sets about mandating price on the fungible commodity that they sell. I'm not saying the commodity market is rational, mind you. I'm just saying if a producer tried to strong arm these kinds of tactics, the market buyers would respond with a very loud and heartfelt FOAD.
"Print is dead." But we pay market rates anyway.
Long live the all holy business model.
"If you're not cheating, you're not trying."
The point of the article is that if you want to rise to CIO, you have to understand the company and how its buisness operates. This means having to transition from skills that are helpful in IT (detailed oriented micro thinking) to skills that are used in business (macro based "big picture" thinking). The article says not to use jargon because managers at the high echelons do not care about the nuts and bolts of how something gets done. They care about the end result and other non-technical drivers (cost, ROI, etc).
Understand, these are typically skills that do not make for a good IT worker. Someone good at IT is detail oriented and laser focused on specific tasks. It is difficult training one's brain to think in a different manner. And in the IT real, people are quick to discount those who don't think as they do. The sad part is those that "think differently" in this case happen to be those who sign the paychecks.
FTA: "This isn't because I don't have positions that need filling. On the contrary, I'm constantly searching for talented new employees, and if someone with the right skills walked into my office, he or she would likely leave it with a very compelling offer. The problem is that the right skills are very hard to find. And I'm sorry to say it, dear graduates, but you probably don't have them."
-----
The downside of having said programming skills if you could be conned into working for a total douche-nozzle like this.
Also, this dude is very high on himself and what he's doing. "Next potential dream boss"? "Cool and interesting" company with "interesting and rewarding" work? Bro, you sell internet ads. Your "interesting and rewarding" work is trying to find new and innovative ways to piss me off while I'm looking at Ebay and surifing for porn. Let's not get carried away here.
Nowhere in the parent post do I read that there are problems with his code not working. In fact the phrase "far from elegant" really does tell the tale. The true "problem" here is obvious: The product isn't being done the way *you* think it should. It is admirable that you have these standards, but in the "real world" one has to work on a continum between time and budget.
Also, the author complains that 1) the code is not up to his stanadards, yet 2) he doesn't feel he should have to make it so. If you wish for the coding to be done your way, then you will need to invest the extra time to do it. Otherwise accept that "functional = good enough" and drive on.
The principal seemed to understand what happened and didn't think it was a big deal. From the articles posted it seems to me that it was the School Resource Officer that made the call to turn this into a criminal matter, which makes sense as these officers face the same pressure as other LEOs to make arrests and "justify their existence".
This is why cops need not be stationed in schools.
Or, you know, people could still use it to, oh let's see ... play games?
I doubt that the networking features are the most used aspects of these consoles.
Use a console to actually play a game?? Who the hell does that anymore? If I can't use it to surf facebook while checking CNN and controlling my home security system, I ain't interested.
(Satire, true. A shame, maybe. None the less your point is an antiquated view of the current state and direction of consoles)
.....the Wii becomes a Nintendo branded door stop / boat anchor.
Good ole Nintendo, showing once again that the "fuck you, pay me!" business model is for pussies.
Eh. Being "gainfully employed" is overrated anyway lol.
So you deny that there is penetration involved as part of the test?
Let's jam the probe partially up your ass and look for signs of a brain......my guess is we won't find one.
'The whole concept of security awareness training demonstrates how the computer industry has failed. We should be designing systems that won't let users choose lousy passwords and don't care what links a user clicks on,'
----
Uh huh. And when the owner / C level individual comes over and says he wants his password to be "airplane" because that's the only one he has ever used and he's not remembering a new one, what would Bruce Schneier tell them? No? Fuck you?
What you call a "libertarian ben" I merely call "distrust of law enforcement". Texas to this day is one of the hardest states to get a conviction in because of all the pro-defendant protections built into the system. Texas law on confessions, searches by third parties, warrantless arrests, and search warrants are all *way* stricter than the Federal Constitution requires. I see this cell phone bill as another step in that direction.
And since you mentioned it: Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure. And the Planned Parenthood nonsense going on in this state is further afield of any Libertarian bent.
Obama is playing longball. By doing it Obama's way it's a two-fer because we would drain the smartest and most motivated from our competitors and then use them in *our* workforce.
Think of it in evolution terms as injecting new competitive genes into the genepool.
"there is something wrong with overcharging, and then raising the ante, merely to wring a guilty plea to a dubious statute."
-----
This is not limited to Federal prosecutors. State District Attorneys do this too.
> a bunch of old white guys...
RACIST! You imply that a bunch of young Hispanic or black or Asian women would perform more competently if running the government. There's nothing about being old or white or being a man that makes a government employee bad...they can do a terrible job in all shapes, sizes, colors, sexes and ages.
You're willing to sit there and argue that the overwhelming effects of policies coming out of Washington (at least until 2009, sorta) *don't* primarily serve the interests of rich old white men?
But, I'll play the racist game. Am I suggesting that a more minority split government would be at least a little hesitant to buy the wholesale claims of fear eminninating from government today? You bet your ass.
It is not racism to suggest that different ethnic groups in this country see authority in different ways. (And I'm a middle-upper class white dude lawyer!)
You mean they're going to actually give a fuck about security and finally replace Windows with Linux for SCADA!? Hallelujah!
(That's French for "Jihad").
A "be careful what you wish for" statement if ever there were one.
If even somewhat true, this is the kind of thing that will usher in a new era of network surveillance and the kind of restrictions that will kill a formerly free Internet. Governments will have much more incentive to get involved in the standards drafting process in order to ensure "proper adherence" to national security "requests" etc.
I hope I'm wrong, but having seen how people go apeshit with simple "point and click" technologies like guns.......let's see what happens when you get a bunch of old white guys with power trying to lock down things they *truly* don't understand.
The starvation rate in the US is staggeringly low (theres not even a statistic for "starved", they lump it in with "died of exposure"), and the people who starve are not people who could remotely enter the work force. The large majority of them are elderly and die because they are unable to care for themselves; the remainder are generally either mentally ill, or are too young to care for themselves.
I challenge you to find either by name or by statistic anyone in the US who, though employable, starved due to unemployment. I would challenge you to even find a solid statistic of how many people starve annually in the US; as far as I can tell it too low to track.
I noticed you dodged the first part fo the condition: "unemployed". Doing so and ignoring that part of the pre-condition pretty much renders your comment non-sequitur. But to respond to your point, no the U.S. does not have the same starvation issues that other shitholes around the world have. But you're obtusely ignoring the fact that employment affects the cases of hunger that do exist here, such as caretakers for elderly and children being able to find jobs.
Because "all people are created equal.... and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" leaves no room in my mind for "except people from other countries". Because it seems remarkably cold to bitch about "fat cats on wall street" on your ipad twitter account as millions of potential workers in india live in abject poverty.
And since when did "immigrating to American to take a good paying job" become an inalienable right?
Nowhere in any of the above statements do you even suggest that those getting the H1-B visas are the better qualified workers. You're advocating the program as a way to lift others out of poverty in other countries and just about came out and said so. Fuck that. It is not a sentiment that is often expressed out loud anymore, but we have our own job base here that needs attending to.
Don't like it? Then advise the "millions of potential workers in India in abject poverty" to pick up some pitchforks and be agents of change within their own government. There simply isn't enough to go around.
It seems to me that a more "open" workforce market can only be a good thing if it breaks down the barriers that allow companies in India, China, wherever to offer work for a pittance, when those workers can just go to another country and get a better living wage.
----
1) Why should I care about the "barriers" and wages of other countries when there are people unemployed and starving here?
2) Why should we help these other countries reform their own labor practices at our expense?
The H1-B is suppose to assist companies in filling gaps when the local labor pool cannot provide. It was *intended* to be an "America First" solution. Instead it has been co-opted as a way to keep labor costs down rather than paying IT talent what the market demands.
They may have initially chosen all-you-can-eat, but it's entirely their prerogative to change that at any point in time (barring regulation by the FCC). If they think they can increase profits by going to a tiered model then I applaud them for doing so.
The point of this article isn't outrage over model change, it's that one of the very people who was tasked with regulating this kind of stuff is now saying "Yea, you guys were right all along.
Also, these users aren't "getting more out of it". They are using a service they *paid for*. As in what they were contracted to receive. Now some providers want to change the deal because they didn't have the forsight to anticipate how their agreement would be utilized. What's the point of having a contract then?
Look, they can change their future pricing models any time they wish. Fine. But don't sit there like an obtuse Slashdot user and pretend that the industry didn't outright lie to the FCC to get the changes approved. Then don't sit there and again obtusely pretend that the very Chairman that "believed" the lie wasn't hired on to lobby for the industry.
It seems that if bandwidth has very little cost to the provider then a given provider could differentiate itself as the haven for heavy users, moving to a flat-rate pricing model that's moderately more expensive than what its competitors is charging for "normal use" but significantly cheaper than what a "heavy user" would pay once he goes over the competition's bandwidth caps and starts paying by-the-byte. All heavy users would migrate to this provider. His cost to provide all the extra bandwidth would be only marginally higher than if all his users were "normal", but each one of them would be paying premium over what his competitors end up charging to 99% of their customers (who are not "heavy users").
After reading the above the issue here is obvious: You don't know your history. The communications industry is well known for "unofficial" collusion and price fixing. In your freshman level econ utopia, yes the above is how it would work. In Real World, USA there is no differentiation. All ISPs buy from the same handful of upstream providers that charge uniform rates. Choice of consumer level provider (if it exists at all in your area) is limited because everyone has colluded to offer the same plans with some slightly different window dressing.
As long as you subscribe to the incorrect view that competition in the communications industry exists (here in regards to ISPs) then naturally you will see nothing wrong with these new pricing models.