But what if habits change due to the cost increase?
They do change as a result. That was the entire point of my post. That's why you want to time increases to a point where the economy can absorb the blow from less goods moving around (/less people employed making the goods that get moved around, etc). During an incredibly anemic recovery after a horrible recession while gas prices are already rising due to Mideast instability does not seem like a optimal time to me.
So you say. But you have to realize that's also a hike in the transportation costs of anything shipped by truck in the USA (damn near everything). Gas tax hikes essentially cause a negative supply shock. This is a particularly evil kind of economic event where costs rise and and employment drops. This is why we haven't raised this particular tax in two decades.
If it really needs to rise (most likely it does), if it were me I'd wait until the next time gas prices drop for some reason, and raise it then to absorb the positive shock. Much less painful that way.
Working with Amazon, they can create a new account, give it a strong password, and begin cleaning up the mess with the new account (which the hacker will be unaware of). Now they can, at their own leisure, change passwords, administer accounts, delete crap created by the hacker, etc...
I'm missing something. In order for you to use that nice new account with the strong password, Amazon is going to have to connect your data servers back up with the internet, right? And the instant they do that, the hacker has all their access restored too, right? What's stopping them from immediately changing this new account's password to something they know? Or deleting it? Or doing all sorts of other nasty things before you discover each and every hidey-hole they made for themselves?
Really, I don't see how you can cleanup an attack in realtime with the network up without it turning into a game of corewars (which your side is not likely to win).
No one is saying there is no value or lesser value. What I am saying is if 1% of CS graduates are black then you are not going to have greater than 1% of your tech employees be black....
...unless you work at it, which you should if your employees are going to be designing products for a world that is decidedly >1$ black. There's not really any altruism here; its for the good of the company.
Perhaps women are being guided away from technical pursuits at an early age by the gender stereotypes of their parents and teachers. Perhaps they have freely chosen to do other things. Neither is Yahoo/Google's problem.
Wrong. It is most definitely Yahoo/Google's problem, and a huge one. Their potential customer base contains mostly people (women + male minorities) who the companies have very little understanding of in their creative development staff. There is no way this doesn't retard the service they give their users, which in the long run affects their own bottom-line.
The same thing can be said of blacks. Like it or not the amount of black CS engineers in Silicon Valley is very, very small. You can't artificially create diversity when none exists in the talent pool.
That doesn't mean it isn't valuable to a company. In any good engineering company, all the best product ideas come from the engineers. That means the more your engineering workforce looks like your potential userbase, the better they are going to be able to serve their potential customers with their new products.
Probably the majority of the users of the hotter social media tools are female. Now I will freely admit at age 47 with a wife and two girls, I don't understand women at all. Perhaps some men are better at that than me, but I think its ridiculous to argue that your 85% male workforce is well in touch with the needs and desires of their 60ish% female userbase. This can't be anything but a problem.
Similarly, black people turn out to be huge users of Twitter. Clearly it provides something for them that other platforms don't. What is that? Well, I grew up in the majority black part of my hometown, so I probably understand them better than your average white guy, and I can tell you I don't understand them well enough to be an authority. You really need to ask your black employees. Note the plural. Several. One token person isn't enough to provide a good perspective.
So yes, there is value to a company in having female and black (and Hispanic, and Muslim, and...) employees, over and above their basic tech chops. If white guys don't like to hear that, perhaps they should sit and wonder about the fairness of men not getting jobs waiting tables in deference to women, or ugly people not getting jobs as receptionists and actors. Sometimes your background or looks are actually an important part of your job. That's life.
Well, these are the same bunch of folks that decided to redefine a megabyte as 1,000 bytes to make their "xMB" drives look bigger than they really are.
Once we let them get away with that, can we really blame them for thinking that any marketing cheat they can dream up is fair game?
Back in the 90's people were also worried about tempest-like stuff (e.g., EM emissions),
TEMPEST was one of a set of code-words that were themselves unclassified, but their exact meaning was classified. This allowed people like myself to put them on their resume without the resume becoming classified.
It looks like folks (or at least Wikipedia editors) may have pieced together a meaning for this particular one.
Being obese certainly is disabling. However, it seems kind of weird to define a "disability" something that can be easily (if temporarily) cured by a fairly simple operation. It might even be cheaper for society to pay for periodic liposuction for "sufferers" than it would be to start accommodating the obese with bigger doors, chairs, seats, lifts, etc. everywhere. It would be an interesting economic study for someone.
...and this particular pollster is known to be worse than most. For example, in the 2012 election they had Romney winning two states by more than 5 points which he actually lost.
538 did an analysis of this. However, the swing was so huge that you really can't put all the blame on the pollster. Being wrong by 10 points (as they often are) is a whole different kettle of fish from being wrong by 44. Other non-internals recently showed Cantor winning by 10. So clearly something happened.
I worked on a COMSEC job back in the '90s, and both our device and our building (particularly the windows) had countermeasures for this kind of attack.
Perhaps this is a new thing for garage hackers, but intelligence agencies have known about it for decades.
'knowing' another race because you have a higher or lower percentage of population is really near sighted
If we were talking about an individual, or were quibbling over a few %, I'd be sympathetic with this argument. But arguing that folks in the aggregate aren't more detached from folks who statistically are just not their neighbors, and won't be bumped into socially around where they live, is beyond silliness.
We are not currently experiencing a "surge of people... at the border". In fact it has been dropping since the Great Recession started in 2007. That's 7 years (getting up towards a decade).
We are not going easier on illegal immigrants than in the past either. In fact, Obama is on a pace to deport more people than Bush, or in fact any other president in history. This while illegal immigration is declining. (There is actually some debate on this point, but its pretty clear the guy has at least not let up on the gas).
Cantor never expressed any support whatsoever for amnesty. His entire crime was saying on local TV that he'd be willing to work with the president on a "border security bill", if the POTUS would change it to make Cantor happy (note, not Congress, but Cantor. There are already enough votes in Congress to pass the Senate's bill unchanged).
A cynic might wonder whether Cantor's bigger crime was expressing insufficient callousness to "illegals", or expressing a willingness to "work with the President".
Why should older teachers be (more than a little) higher paid?
In pretty much any industry you can name, for any given job workers with more experience on the job tend to be paid more. There's nothing special about teaching in this regard. The only real difference is that in union shops the pay raises tend to be set by policy, rather than doled out semi-randomly by management whim.
This isn't a theoretical thing either. My father-in-law taught high school English for 25 years, which made him the highest-paid teacher at his school. So of course the first thing that happened when his principal retired was that the new guy tried to get him fired (and then predictably bitched about being thwarted by the tenure system). Even with the unions and the tenure he was forcibly retired.
This anti-tenure stuff is directly aimed at older experienced(=expensive) teachers.
but the reasons that necessitated tenure are long gone, and all teachers are protected under the standard laws for hiring and firing, which cover us all. They also have a strong union that will ensure protections. So there's no need for special laws that give teachers more advantages than everybody else at the expense of their students.
My father in law was a High School English teacher for about 25 years. He was very good friends with his principal.
One day his principal retired and a new principal was brought in, and the first thing he wanted to do was clean house of anyone and anything associated with the old guy. Of course that included my father-in-law. A cynic might also note that he was probably the most well-paid teacher in the school, thanks to all those years of service. Tenure was the only thing that kept him from being fired. As it was, he was still forcibly retired (tenure, union, and all). Meanwhile the new principal was bitching to high heaven about the tenure system that prevented him from outright firing anyone he wanted. I'd quote him, but it was the exact same anti-tenure spiel you've heard a million times before.
Having seen the other end of it really opened my eyes. Teachers are in a really vulnerable position, and the folks over them (principals, school boards, etc.) are hyper-political. If you want folks who are completely absorbed with covering their own hineys rather than teaching kids (which I think is exactly what a lot of the anti-tenure folks want) then sure, get rid of tenure.
Stronger than steel is cool and all, but that doesn't necessarily mean "all the same properties of steel".
In fact, one of the important properties of steel is that it is not biodegradable. The last thing anybody wants is to have an office in the 54th floor of a building made out of material that is touted for how easily it degrades.
When I was a kid, I'd regularly hear about cops shooting to death a "suspect" who (in the cop's judgment) was "fleeing". It was hardly even news. Essentially, if you ever turned your back on a cop, you were fair game for target practice. This was considered perfectly acceptable here until the Supreme Court outlawed it in '85.
If they're just rouging you up a bit now, you're getting off light.
Further, the most dangerous cities to live in today, are precisely those cities with the strictest gun control.
Yes, because there's no way that could possibly be an effect, rather than a cause. Just ask anyone in an inner city who's had a loved one shot to death about their abiding love of guns and desire that there were more of them on the streets in their neighborhood.
That's why I really don't like it that Google automatically assumes you meant something else when it figures you misspelled something, and takes you to the "right" search. If you don't notice the "Showing results for kuiper belt Search instead for kyber belt" at the top in your haste for looking at the results, you're apt to think your misspelling/bad memory was right.
Mostly right, but you are glossing over Mars, which I think is the really big deal. It shouldn't shock anyone that Kyber belt objects have a very different composition than earth rocks. Nothing out there looks much like Earth at all. But Mars is one of the inner planets. The fact that rocks from Mars *also* look way different tells us that either *every* planet can be expected to have its own unique compositional "fingerprint", or that for some unexplained reason Mars (the one rocky planet we've been able to examine so far) is an outlier among the rocky planets, and all the others will suddenly start to look alike when we can get around to examining them. Of those two options, the former seems far more likely.
So yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume Mercury and Venus will show the same thing we've seen with every other object in the Solar system we've examined, save only the Moon. We should still prove this theory by getting samples from those planets as soon as we reasonably can. But in the meantime it is the one theory that survives Occam's Razor with the data we have today.
I rewrote the whole thing. From top to bottom, replaced nearly a million lines of legacy code, in a 2 week feverpitch of sleepless nights and rocking a 2 day old baby in my arms while running unit tests.
And for this amazing feat, in addition tor fixing an emergency they caused by knowingly letting a bad buggy system slide for years, you were of course greatly rewarded. Perhaps a big raise, promotion, a big one-time award a sizable % of the money you saved them, etc..
"Gibberish" is a bit much. But the GP is exactly right on all other counts. What is being proposed is a ridiculous amount of work, relies on perfect security thereafter, and only addresses a single vector of many that were mentioned in Thompson's talk.
It reads a lot more like a "go back to sleep, all is well" paper than an actual practical solution. If I'm wrong, then surely people are doing what he suggested right now. So who are they?
Slashdot Mirror
But what if habits change due to the cost increase?
They do change as a result. That was the entire point of my post. That's why you want to time increases to a point where the economy can absorb the blow from less goods moving around (/less people employed making the goods that get moved around, etc). During an incredibly anemic recovery after a horrible recession while gas prices are already rising due to Mideast instability does not seem like a optimal time to me.
So you say. But you have to realize that's also a hike in the transportation costs of anything shipped by truck in the USA (damn near everything). Gas tax hikes essentially cause a negative supply shock. This is a particularly evil kind of economic event where costs rise and and employment drops. This is why we haven't raised this particular tax in two decades.
If it really needs to rise (most likely it does), if it were me I'd wait until the next time gas prices drop for some reason, and raise it then to absorb the positive shock. Much less painful that way.
Working with Amazon, they can create a new account, give it a strong password, and begin cleaning up the mess with the new account (which the hacker will be unaware of). Now they can, at their own leisure, change passwords, administer accounts, delete crap created by the hacker, etc...
I'm missing something. In order for you to use that nice new account with the strong password, Amazon is going to have to connect your data servers back up with the internet, right? And the instant they do that, the hacker has all their access restored too, right? What's stopping them from immediately changing this new account's password to something they know? Or deleting it? Or doing all sorts of other nasty things before you discover each and every hidey-hole they made for themselves?
Really, I don't see how you can cleanup an attack in realtime with the network up without it turning into a game of corewars (which your side is not likely to win).
No one is saying there is no value or lesser value. What I am saying is if 1% of CS graduates are black then you are not going to have greater than 1% of your tech employees be black....
...unless you work at it, which you should if your employees are going to be designing products for a world that is decidedly >1$ black. There's not really any altruism here; its for the good of the company.
Perhaps women are being guided away from technical pursuits at an early age by the gender stereotypes of their parents and teachers. Perhaps they have freely chosen to do other things. Neither is Yahoo/Google's problem.
Wrong. It is most definitely Yahoo/Google's problem, and a huge one. Their potential customer base contains mostly people (women + male minorities) who the companies have very little understanding of in their creative development staff. There is no way this doesn't retard the service they give their users, which in the long run affects their own bottom-line.
The same thing can be said of blacks. Like it or not the amount of black CS engineers in Silicon Valley is very, very small. You can't artificially create diversity when none exists in the talent pool.
That doesn't mean it isn't valuable to a company. In any good engineering company, all the best product ideas come from the engineers. That means the more your engineering workforce looks like your potential userbase, the better they are going to be able to serve their potential customers with their new products.
Probably the majority of the users of the hotter social media tools are female. Now I will freely admit at age 47 with a wife and two girls, I don't understand women at all. Perhaps some men are better at that than me, but I think its ridiculous to argue that your 85% male workforce is well in touch with the needs and desires of their 60ish% female userbase. This can't be anything but a problem.
Similarly, black people turn out to be huge users of Twitter. Clearly it provides something for them that other platforms don't. What is that? Well, I grew up in the majority black part of my hometown, so I probably understand them better than your average white guy, and I can tell you I don't understand them well enough to be an authority. You really need to ask your black employees. Note the plural. Several. One token person isn't enough to provide a good perspective.
So yes, there is value to a company in having female and black (and Hispanic, and Muslim, and ...) employees, over and above their basic tech chops. If white guys don't like to hear that, perhaps they should sit and wonder about the fairness of men not getting jobs waiting tables in deference to women, or ugly people not getting jobs as receptionists and actors. Sometimes your background or looks are actually an important part of your job. That's life.
Well, these are the same bunch of folks that decided to redefine a megabyte as 1,000 bytes to make their "xMB" drives look bigger than they really are.
Once we let them get away with that, can we really blame them for thinking that any marketing cheat they can dream up is fair game?
Back in the 90's people were also worried about tempest-like stuff (e.g., EM emissions),
TEMPEST was one of a set of code-words that were themselves unclassified, but their exact meaning was classified. This allowed people like myself to put them on their resume without the resume becoming classified.
It looks like folks (or at least Wikipedia editors) may have pieced together a meaning for this particular one.
Being obese certainly is disabling. However, it seems kind of weird to define a "disability" something that can be easily (if temporarily) cured by a fairly simple operation. It might even be cheaper for society to pay for periodic liposuction for "sufferers" than it would be to start accommodating the obese with bigger doors, chairs, seats, lifts, etc. everywhere. It would be an interesting economic study for someone.
...and this particular pollster is known to be worse than most. For example, in the 2012 election they had Romney winning two states by more than 5 points which he actually lost.
538 did an analysis of this. However, the swing was so huge that you really can't put all the blame on the pollster. Being wrong by 10 points (as they often are) is a whole different kettle of fish from being wrong by 44. Other non-internals recently showed Cantor winning by 10. So clearly something happened.
I worked on a COMSEC job back in the '90s, and both our device and our building (particularly the windows) had countermeasures for this kind of attack.
Perhaps this is a new thing for garage hackers, but intelligence agencies have known about it for decades.
'knowing' another race because you have a higher or lower percentage of population is really near sighted
If we were talking about an individual, or were quibbling over a few %, I'd be sympathetic with this argument. But arguing that folks in the aggregate aren't more detached from folks who statistically are just not their neighbors, and won't be bumped into socially around where they live, is beyond silliness.
A cynic might wonder whether Cantor's bigger crime was expressing insufficient callousness to "illegals", or expressing a willingness to "work with the President".
Thank you for the perspective.
Here's what I'm seeing from the outside:
I'm no detective, but the footprints look pretty darn clear to me.
Why should older teachers be (more than a little) higher paid?
In pretty much any industry you can name, for any given job workers with more experience on the job tend to be paid more. There's nothing special about teaching in this regard. The only real difference is that in union shops the pay raises tend to be set by policy, rather than doled out semi-randomly by management whim.
This isn't a theoretical thing either. My father-in-law taught high school English for 25 years, which made him the highest-paid teacher at his school. So of course the first thing that happened when his principal retired was that the new guy tried to get him fired (and then predictably bitched about being thwarted by the tenure system). Even with the unions and the tenure he was forcibly retired.
This anti-tenure stuff is directly aimed at older experienced(=expensive) teachers.
but the reasons that necessitated tenure are long gone, and all teachers are protected under the standard laws for hiring and firing, which cover us all. They also have a strong union that will ensure protections. So there's no need for special laws that give teachers more advantages than everybody else at the expense of their students.
My father in law was a High School English teacher for about 25 years. He was very good friends with his principal.
One day his principal retired and a new principal was brought in, and the first thing he wanted to do was clean house of anyone and anything associated with the old guy. Of course that included my father-in-law. A cynic might also note that he was probably the most well-paid teacher in the school, thanks to all those years of service. Tenure was the only thing that kept him from being fired. As it was, he was still forcibly retired (tenure, union, and all). Meanwhile the new principal was bitching to high heaven about the tenure system that prevented him from outright firing anyone he wanted. I'd quote him, but it was the exact same anti-tenure spiel you've heard a million times before.
Having seen the other end of it really opened my eyes. Teachers are in a really vulnerable position, and the folks over them (principals, school boards, etc.) are hyper-political. If you want folks who are completely absorbed with covering their own hineys rather than teaching kids (which I think is exactly what a lot of the anti-tenure folks want) then sure, get rid of tenure.
Stronger than steel is cool and all, but that doesn't necessarily mean "all the same properties of steel".
In fact, one of the important properties of steel is that it is not biodegradable. The last thing anybody wants is to have an office in the 54th floor of a building made out of material that is touted for how easily it degrades.
the only difference now is increased reporting
This.
When I was a kid, I'd regularly hear about cops shooting to death a "suspect" who (in the cop's judgment) was "fleeing". It was hardly even news. Essentially, if you ever turned your back on a cop, you were fair game for target practice. This was considered perfectly acceptable here until the Supreme Court outlawed it in '85.
If they're just rouging you up a bit now, you're getting off light.
Further, the most dangerous cities to live in today, are precisely those cities with the strictest gun control.
Yes, because there's no way that could possibly be an effect, rather than a cause. Just ask anyone in an inner city who's had a loved one shot to death about their abiding love of guns and desire that there were more of them on the streets in their neighborhood.
(Turing wasn't envisioning Twitter).
I'm pretty sure most of the tweets tagged with #tcot are sent by bots.
That's why I really don't like it that Google automatically assumes you meant something else when it figures you misspelled something, and takes you to the "right" search. If you don't notice the "Showing results for kuiper belt Search instead for kyber belt" at the top in your haste for looking at the results, you're apt to think your misspelling/bad memory was right.
Mostly right, but you are glossing over Mars, which I think is the really big deal. It shouldn't shock anyone that Kyber belt objects have a very different composition than earth rocks. Nothing out there looks much like Earth at all. But Mars is one of the inner planets. The fact that rocks from Mars *also* look way different tells us that either *every* planet can be expected to have its own unique compositional "fingerprint", or that for some unexplained reason Mars (the one rocky planet we've been able to examine so far) is an outlier among the rocky planets, and all the others will suddenly start to look alike when we can get around to examining them. Of those two options, the former seems far more likely.
So yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume Mercury and Venus will show the same thing we've seen with every other object in the Solar system we've examined, save only the Moon. We should still prove this theory by getting samples from those planets as soon as we reasonably can. But in the meantime it is the one theory that survives Occam's Razor with the data we have today.
I rewrote the whole thing. From top to bottom, replaced nearly a million lines of legacy code, in a 2 week feverpitch of sleepless nights and rocking a 2 day old baby in my arms while running unit tests.
And for this amazing feat, in addition tor fixing an emergency they caused by knowingly letting a bad buggy system slide for years, you were of course greatly rewarded. Perhaps a big raise, promotion, a big one-time award a sizable % of the money you saved them, etc..
(Yes, I'm shooting for +5 funny on this one)
That's darn nice of you, but what do you do with the laptop?
"Gibberish" is a bit much. But the GP is exactly right on all other counts. What is being proposed is a ridiculous amount of work, relies on perfect security thereafter, and only addresses a single vector of many that were mentioned in Thompson's talk. It reads a lot more like a "go back to sleep, all is well" paper than an actual practical solution. If I'm wrong, then surely people are doing what he suggested right now. So who are they?