The problem is that politicians aren't necessarily in the business of common sense, and police departments need their revenue, just like any other third world country. (And no, I'm not saying the US is a third world country, just that our police departments behave like one. Though third world countries may even be a little more honest, because they don't hide the fact that they need bribes to keep working.)
Remember how Chuck Schumer ordered the DOJ to seize their domain name, and was royally pissed when he found out that there was no domain name to seize? He doesn't give a shit about Silk Road being more safe than street dealers, rather in his own pathetic little mind, he seems to think that you can keep a hippie off of drugs by just hiding his joints. But in his defense, that is a common theme amongst his fellow democrats who also happen to think that banning guns will 100% keep them out of the hands of criminals as well.
You're referring to the law of threes. That isn't due to collusion, rather it's due to how consumers tend to develop brand loyalty. It manifests particularly hard in the tech sector where independent developers tend to pick two platforms to support and ignore the rest. Microsoft has been fighting this tooth and nail with their windows phone platform, which can't seem to catch a break, because the other two players have everybody's attention.
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
Just so you know, everything you just said also applied to Irish and Gypsies. What you said however does not apply to hispanics. Yet, AA applies to hispanics and not Irish or Gypsies.
Because although the march of progress does eliminate jobs, it doesn't decrease the quality of life, necessarily....
Lest you think that I'm being pessemistic, I actually think this is chance for humans to enter the next phase of civilization, not unlike when we started to settle down and become agrarian.
Exactly. The only way it will be possible to run out of jobs is if there truly was nothing left for anybody to do. If that day ever came, (will it? who knows) then we'd be living in the universe imagined by Gene Roddenberry where there's no more need for money.
I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_,
Before you espouse socialism, understand what it is first. Socialism means that the government takes over the means of production, which is destructive on the economy for the same reason that monopolies are destructive (socialism effectively is the same thing as a monopoly.)
What you're describing is welfare, not socialism.
That said, I really don't think you're fit to give economic advisement to anybody.
If we put these doomsayers back about 40 years, they'd say the sky is falling for the telecom industry when switchboard operators were being replaced with automated circuit switching systems.
Some of medium.com's articles are really good, especially the ones about physics. But some of them (like this one) are either based on hearsay or make some really dumb assumptions.
Take for example the map they show that indicates that most of the states have trucking as their top income sector. If we rolled back the clock about 150 years, that entire map would show farming. 90% of the US population were farmers at that time. However as the industrial revolution progressed, those people moved away from farming and towards other sectors.
Right now what we're seeing is basically another industrial revolution, which began somewhere around 1995, something I myself want to refer to as the information revolution. Information technology (IT) is advancing at such a high rate that its encroaching into other sectors that previously had nothing to do with computers.
Where medium (and these other doomsayers) are going wrong is they just assume that overnight suddenly 10 million people will be out of a job. That isn't at all accurate. The trucking industry will probably continue to grow for about 5 more years, and after that it will see a slow but steady decline until it has very few members remaining, and those few members will retain their jobs. There will probably be far fewer people driving trucks, but more people managing them (be that route planning, load planning, maintenance, etc) because the number of trucks on the road is likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future.
This has all happened before, and it will all happen again. Meanwhile Luddites will continue to be Luddites.
The majority of jobs today aren't needed (I.E, Sales).
You're dead wrong. You know a job is needed when somebody is willing to pay you to do it. When I was doing my PC repair business in college, I would love to have had a sales person who could track down leads and find me customers. It would have made my work much more profitable, because people are looking for that all the time, however I don't have the skills to find them. Salespeople do.
If you will excuse the Godwin, Nazis had good taste in art but nobody cites Nazi art critiques because, alas, other things done by Nazis.
There's actually a lot of things I found interesting about Nazis that is never mentioned in high school or college history books. For example, part of their ideology was...strangely...staunchly in favor of animal rights. Also, Jew genocide wasn't one of their initial goals; at first they were either putting Jews into forced labor camps (to build the German economy, but it wasn't only Jews that ended up there) or just simply deporting them out of Europe. That is, until Hitler came up with his final solution, then instead of pushing them out of Europe they suddenly started bringing them in en masse to send them to the death camps.
Another interesting thing is that a lot of gays don't seem to understand where the pink triangle came from. It was actually a marking that gay males were required to wear (like how Jews were required to wear a double yellow triangle; lesbians were to wear black triangles) and initially gay men were sent to camps where it was believed that they could be converted to being straight, and they were forced to have sex with women, among other things, but initially being executed wasn't one of those things.
Also interestingly, pink was considered to be a very masculine color prior to that era, and switched around that time. Related? Maybe...Maybe not.
It could be the games themselves that are causing it rather than the platform.
I remember HL2 would cause me to get motion sick, but only on the level where you drove the fan boat through the acid canals and nowhere else.
The only other game to cause me to get motion sick was wolfenstein 3d if it was run on a modern computer. Older computers (that ran at a slower frame rate) didn't cause it for some reason.
I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.
The first didn't happen, not even close, and the second doesn't seem likely to happen.
It's like listening to the news about the doomsday clock; it just gets old after a while, and I don't give a damn what supposed bright minds are behind it.
I think the problematic phrase is "when it suits them" and I would speculate that it rarely suits them to turn their emotions on and empathize with others, especially when doing so would conflict with personal gain.
I think you're confusing a personal gain with a selfish gain. At the end of the day, everybody does what they do because it ultimately suits themselves, but that doesn't mean they are being selfish.
That said, a psychopath often also has a bond people who they consider "their own." Something that often (but not always) includes is family. In the case of a company, often they'll consider that to be their family, and put that ahead of others interests, including their own personal interests. For example, it can also be said that a very effective Army general's victory is his own goal. Erwin Rommel didn't really care for the Nazi movement, rather he was an effective general because he was given a job and he did that job at the expense of all else, including his own personal benefit.
Another thing psychopaths are known for is to have universal empathy for some things at the expense of all others. For example that might be babies or animals, which is often the motivation behind people who bomb abortion clinics (surprise, not all of them are religious) or groups like ALF who threaten physical violence against medical researchers who work with animals. Some also have universal empathy for things or concepts, like ELF who threaten physical violence against lumberjacks.
People like these often don't care if they end up in jail or in the electric chair, just so long as they believe they served a purpose that suits them.
Well maybe Kirk was a bit dispassionate. He cared a lot about Bones and Spock, but he only pretended to give a shit about the red shirts.
That's not far removed from Tony Soprano who loved his family, but at the end of the day only pretended to care for his mafiosos, and would turn on them if they weren't driving him a profit.
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
That's actually a fairly accurate description of our current president, and the people who voted for him twice.
I'm not an anti-vax person myself, but I do suspect that at least one of the vaccines I received in the Army caused my current chronic kidney disease, which is caused by a misformed IgA antibody. I suspect that because I have a familial history of Ceceliacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations. That, and this:
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they? Because the anti-vax movement has made anybody who does easily lose credibility, because the anti-vax movement repeatedly and often makes very stupid claims (autism? are you fucking kidding me?) that cause everybody else to come down hard on anybody who speaks honestly about any potential down sides of it.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
I'm not sure what point people who push that statistic are trying to get across. Being a psychopath doesn't inherently make you a bad person, it turns out that it's just a description of how your brain is physically wired.
In many respects, having your brain wired that way is quite useful. For example, any profession that requires a high sense of objectivity would be much better performed by somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them, which is a common trait in psychopaths.
These kinds of people make great scientists, judges, journalists, lawyers, etc.
No..... CCNA would be for a technical implementation expert, who could help support the technical work of implementing the security team's policies, not a security expert.
CCNA Security is not the same thing as CCNA. And the curriculum (at least when I did it back in 2012) required an understanding of the usual concepts of social engineering, cryptography (i.e. symmetric vs assymetric, hashing, etc.)
In fact the NSA and CNSS both recognize having a CCNA Security certification as enough to be CNSS 4011 certified, which is a VERY good credential for anybody who wants to work in IT security.
Which by the way, the beginning certifications I would look at as a sysadmin would be: (in order of marketability)
CCNA MCSA (get the 2008 version; the 2012 version is a lot harder and isn't any more valuable, mainly because nobody actually uses Windows Server 2012) RHCSA
CCNA Security is a good overall certification to have if you want to begin in IT security, and IMO is more valuable than Security+ because not only does it cover all of the same material, but gives you a good background in network security on top if it. Given that the network is the single most important component of any IT infrastructure, I'd say it's a winner.
Never too old for college. Seriously I've shared a classroom with a few 50 year old's, with the oldest person being in his 70s.
That said, if you have a below 2.5 GPA...good lord, go get a new diploma and with a higher GPA. Only your most recent GPA counts. Getting a good GPA isn't hard, it just requires you to actually give a shit. Employers tend to not care so much for people who don't give a shit. When I was in high school, I think I had somewhere around a 2.0, but graduated college with a 4.0. Nobody anywhere knows what my high school GPA was unless I just tell them (I've never had anybody ask, come to think of it.) I didn't give a shit in high school. Anyways the good college GPA landed me a nice internship at age 30 (yes, you're never too old for an internship either) which connected me with some influential people, and now I have a job with a legit income.
Also having said that, if you're planning on working for somebody else, then who you know is often more important than what you know. This is an unfortunate reality of our system where it's risky to hire people because letting go of the lemons often comes with legal hurdles. The what you know part is a good starting point to build those connections though, you just gotta do something to stand out. My two things to stand out were: Having decent grades, and coming first place in a local technology competition.
Alternatively, you could start your own company, which in many cases doesn't need as much of the "who you know" component as climbing the corporate ladder often does.
Graduated with my bachelors at age 32, by the way.
I think the real purpose behind this is a call for a new organization called The Movie Security Task Force that promotes the use of VPNs and private trackers to reduce the number of copyright notices sent out.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that politicians aren't necessarily in the business of common sense, and police departments need their revenue, just like any other third world country. (And no, I'm not saying the US is a third world country, just that our police departments behave like one. Though third world countries may even be a little more honest, because they don't hide the fact that they need bribes to keep working.)
Remember how Chuck Schumer ordered the DOJ to seize their domain name, and was royally pissed when he found out that there was no domain name to seize? He doesn't give a shit about Silk Road being more safe than street dealers, rather in his own pathetic little mind, he seems to think that you can keep a hippie off of drugs by just hiding his joints. But in his defense, that is a common theme amongst his fellow democrats who also happen to think that banning guns will 100% keep them out of the hands of criminals as well.
Or the US government could suddenly declare that genetic engineering is subject to DEA oversight, subjecting that particular field to a dark age.
Which given the US government's stupidly overzealous substance control laws, it's not far removed from being a reality.
Better call Saul.
You're referring to the law of threes. That isn't due to collusion, rather it's due to how consumers tend to develop brand loyalty. It manifests particularly hard in the tech sector where independent developers tend to pick two platforms to support and ignore the rest. Microsoft has been fighting this tooth and nail with their windows phone platform, which can't seem to catch a break, because the other two players have everybody's attention.
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
Just so you know, everything you just said also applied to Irish and Gypsies. What you said however does not apply to hispanics. Yet, AA applies to hispanics and not Irish or Gypsies.
So how do you explain that one?
In such a scenario, I imagine that people who don't do anything at all will still feel entitled to have it all, kind of like occupy wall street.
Because although the march of progress does eliminate jobs, it doesn't decrease the quality of life, necessarily. ...
Lest you think that I'm being pessemistic, I actually think this is chance for humans to enter the next phase of civilization, not unlike when we started to settle down and become agrarian.
Exactly. The only way it will be possible to run out of jobs is if there truly was nothing left for anybody to do. If that day ever came, (will it? who knows) then we'd be living in the universe imagined by Gene Roddenberry where there's no more need for money.
I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_,
Before you espouse socialism, understand what it is first. Socialism means that the government takes over the means of production, which is destructive on the economy for the same reason that monopolies are destructive (socialism effectively is the same thing as a monopoly.)
What you're describing is welfare, not socialism.
That said, I really don't think you're fit to give economic advisement to anybody.
If we put these doomsayers back about 40 years, they'd say the sky is falling for the telecom industry when switchboard operators were being replaced with automated circuit switching systems.
Some of medium.com's articles are really good, especially the ones about physics. But some of them (like this one) are either based on hearsay or make some really dumb assumptions.
Take for example the map they show that indicates that most of the states have trucking as their top income sector. If we rolled back the clock about 150 years, that entire map would show farming. 90% of the US population were farmers at that time. However as the industrial revolution progressed, those people moved away from farming and towards other sectors.
Right now what we're seeing is basically another industrial revolution, which began somewhere around 1995, something I myself want to refer to as the information revolution. Information technology (IT) is advancing at such a high rate that its encroaching into other sectors that previously had nothing to do with computers.
Where medium (and these other doomsayers) are going wrong is they just assume that overnight suddenly 10 million people will be out of a job. That isn't at all accurate. The trucking industry will probably continue to grow for about 5 more years, and after that it will see a slow but steady decline until it has very few members remaining, and those few members will retain their jobs. There will probably be far fewer people driving trucks, but more people managing them (be that route planning, load planning, maintenance, etc) because the number of trucks on the road is likely to continue increasing for the foreseeable future.
This has all happened before, and it will all happen again. Meanwhile Luddites will continue to be Luddites.
The majority of jobs today aren't needed (I.E, Sales).
You're dead wrong. You know a job is needed when somebody is willing to pay you to do it. When I was doing my PC repair business in college, I would love to have had a sales person who could track down leads and find me customers. It would have made my work much more profitable, because people are looking for that all the time, however I don't have the skills to find them. Salespeople do.
If you will excuse the Godwin, Nazis had good taste in art but nobody cites Nazi art critiques because, alas, other things done by Nazis.
There's actually a lot of things I found interesting about Nazis that is never mentioned in high school or college history books. For example, part of their ideology was...strangely...staunchly in favor of animal rights. Also, Jew genocide wasn't one of their initial goals; at first they were either putting Jews into forced labor camps (to build the German economy, but it wasn't only Jews that ended up there) or just simply deporting them out of Europe. That is, until Hitler came up with his final solution, then instead of pushing them out of Europe they suddenly started bringing them in en masse to send them to the death camps.
Another interesting thing is that a lot of gays don't seem to understand where the pink triangle came from. It was actually a marking that gay males were required to wear (like how Jews were required to wear a double yellow triangle; lesbians were to wear black triangles) and initially gay men were sent to camps where it was believed that they could be converted to being straight, and they were forced to have sex with women, among other things, but initially being executed wasn't one of those things.
Also interestingly, pink was considered to be a very masculine color prior to that era, and switched around that time. Related? Maybe...Maybe not.
Oh, and the 1942 era stealth bomber...
It could be the games themselves that are causing it rather than the platform.
I remember HL2 would cause me to get motion sick, but only on the level where you drove the fan boat through the acid canals and nowhere else.
The only other game to cause me to get motion sick was wolfenstein 3d if it was run on a modern computer. Older computers (that ran at a slower frame rate) didn't cause it for some reason.
You make that sound like it's unique to Obama.
Probably not, but I can name at least one president it doesn't describe: JImmy Carter. He was so damn emotional that he was basically worthless.
You forgot GMO, vaccines cause autism, and electromagnetic allergies.
On what precedent do you base that?
I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.
The first didn't happen, not even close, and the second doesn't seem likely to happen.
It's like listening to the news about the doomsday clock; it just gets old after a while, and I don't give a damn what supposed bright minds are behind it.
You forgot to convert it to MIDI first, which any good hacker can do.
I think the problematic phrase is "when it suits them" and I would speculate that it rarely suits them to turn their emotions on and empathize with others, especially when doing so would conflict with personal gain.
I think you're confusing a personal gain with a selfish gain. At the end of the day, everybody does what they do because it ultimately suits themselves, but that doesn't mean they are being selfish.
That said, a psychopath often also has a bond people who they consider "their own." Something that often (but not always) includes is family. In the case of a company, often they'll consider that to be their family, and put that ahead of others interests, including their own personal interests. For example, it can also be said that a very effective Army general's victory is his own goal. Erwin Rommel didn't really care for the Nazi movement, rather he was an effective general because he was given a job and he did that job at the expense of all else, including his own personal benefit.
Another thing psychopaths are known for is to have universal empathy for some things at the expense of all others. For example that might be babies or animals, which is often the motivation behind people who bomb abortion clinics (surprise, not all of them are religious) or groups like ALF who threaten physical violence against medical researchers who work with animals. Some also have universal empathy for things or concepts, like ELF who threaten physical violence against lumberjacks.
People like these often don't care if they end up in jail or in the electric chair, just so long as they believe they served a purpose that suits them.
Well maybe Kirk was a bit dispassionate. He cared a lot about Bones and Spock, but he only pretended to give a shit about the red shirts.
That's not far removed from Tony Soprano who loved his family, but at the end of the day only pretended to care for his mafiosos, and would turn on them if they weren't driving him a profit.
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
That's actually a fairly accurate description of our current president, and the people who voted for him twice.
I'm not an anti-vax person myself, but I do suspect that at least one of the vaccines I received in the Army caused my current chronic kidney disease, which is caused by a misformed IgA antibody. I suspect that because I have a familial history of Ceceliacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations. That, and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they? Because the anti-vax movement has made anybody who does easily lose credibility, because the anti-vax movement repeatedly and often makes very stupid claims (autism? are you fucking kidding me?) that cause everybody else to come down hard on anybody who speaks honestly about any potential down sides of it.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
I'm not sure what point people who push that statistic are trying to get across. Being a psychopath doesn't inherently make you a bad person, it turns out that it's just a description of how your brain is physically wired.
In many respects, having your brain wired that way is quite useful. For example, any profession that requires a high sense of objectivity would be much better performed by somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them, which is a common trait in psychopaths.
These kinds of people make great scientists, judges, journalists, lawyers, etc.
No..... CCNA would be for a technical implementation expert, who could help support the technical work of implementing the security team's policies, not a security expert.
CCNA Security is not the same thing as CCNA. And the curriculum (at least when I did it back in 2012) required an understanding of the usual concepts of social engineering, cryptography (i.e. symmetric vs assymetric, hashing, etc.)
In fact the NSA and CNSS both recognize having a CCNA Security certification as enough to be CNSS 4011 certified, which is a VERY good credential for anybody who wants to work in IT security.
http://www.cisco.com/web/learn...
http://www.villanovau.com/reso...
Which by the way, the beginning certifications I would look at as a sysadmin would be: (in order of marketability)
CCNA
MCSA (get the 2008 version; the 2012 version is a lot harder and isn't any more valuable, mainly because nobody actually uses Windows Server 2012)
RHCSA
CCNA Security is a good overall certification to have if you want to begin in IT security, and IMO is more valuable than Security+ because not only does it cover all of the same material, but gives you a good background in network security on top if it. Given that the network is the single most important component of any IT infrastructure, I'd say it's a winner.
Never too old for college. Seriously I've shared a classroom with a few 50 year old's, with the oldest person being in his 70s.
That said, if you have a below 2.5 GPA...good lord, go get a new diploma and with a higher GPA. Only your most recent GPA counts. Getting a good GPA isn't hard, it just requires you to actually give a shit. Employers tend to not care so much for people who don't give a shit. When I was in high school, I think I had somewhere around a 2.0, but graduated college with a 4.0. Nobody anywhere knows what my high school GPA was unless I just tell them (I've never had anybody ask, come to think of it.) I didn't give a shit in high school. Anyways the good college GPA landed me a nice internship at age 30 (yes, you're never too old for an internship either) which connected me with some influential people, and now I have a job with a legit income.
Also having said that, if you're planning on working for somebody else, then who you know is often more important than what you know. This is an unfortunate reality of our system where it's risky to hire people because letting go of the lemons often comes with legal hurdles. The what you know part is a good starting point to build those connections though, you just gotta do something to stand out. My two things to stand out were: Having decent grades, and coming first place in a local technology competition.
Alternatively, you could start your own company, which in many cases doesn't need as much of the "who you know" component as climbing the corporate ladder often does.
Graduated with my bachelors at age 32, by the way.
I think the real purpose behind this is a call for a new organization called The Movie Security Task Force that promotes the use of VPNs and private trackers to reduce the number of copyright notices sent out.