I don't know about the UK, but in the US they measure unemployment using several different metrics. Some of those metrics are designed to capture things like discouraged workers. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the following metrics labeled U-1 to U-6, but generally the press only talks about U-3:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor
I'm not sure that any of these capture your specific point, but the BLS does look at different aspects of the problem.
A lesson that I learned a long time ago, keep your work life and home life separate. The attorneys for your workplace will have the company's interest at heart, not yours. Our company has a fairly liberal computer policy. You can use workplace computers for personal use as long as it does not interfere with work or break any laws. Nonetheless, in our ethics training, it was pointed out that if the company is sued, they may be required to give my computer to the other side. And they will. And anything private on it is open to discovery. They advised keep work and home separate. So I have separate email accounts, separate computers, etc. Never let the two mix.
Many of these decisions are made by Congress, not DOE. As part of the President's Budget submission, DOE submits a budget proposal to Congress. Congress then goes through that budget. As part of their Constitutional duties, Congress frequently says "you're spending too much money here, not enough there." Congress passes the budget, and the President generally signs it. DOE is then stuck with the budget it is given. While DOE has some discretion in moving money around because of unforeseen circumstances, it does not have a free hand. Furthermore, frequently through the committee reports, Congress provides "guidance." In essence saying, "We, the Congress, put this money here for a reason, you better not move it, or there will be hell to pay." Federal agencies pay a lot of attention to "Congressional language." Furthermore, there is a problem in DC known as the "color of money." Congress puts money into different accounts. Frequently, the law says this color of money (e.g., money for salaries) cannot be used for other things (e.g., building new buildings). Added all together, there is a limit on what federal agencies can do.
My point may have been too subtle. I don't trust either the Democrats or the Republicans. In the case of the Clinton problem, I have some first hand knowledge. My neighbor works at the White House and is one of the worker bees involved in both fiascos. He also happens to be a Republican. During the Clinton administration, I was at a neighborhood party, when another neighbor, also a Republican, was screaming "The Clintons are caught in a cover up." The worker bee neighbor says, "No no, we screwed up the backups." Watching two Republicans attack one another, with one defending the Clintons was a highlight of my life. FYI, some of the email was never recovered, for pretty much the same reason as today. On both, occasions - under Clinton and Bush - the worker bees claimed to have written over old backups.
In my mind, the amusing thing is that this has happened before... under the Clinton administration. Remember Travelgate? Remember the lost emails that the White House couldn't find? You would think someone would learn. Or should I believe that maybe Democrats and Republicans have something to gain from poor email archives?
I have to disagree. While in the US there is a grade inflation in many liberal arts courses, my experience is that this is less of a problem in the engineering and sciences. In my job, I do a lot of interviewing for technical positions. And I think you would be surprised at the number of C's and D's I see on undergraduate transcripts. Since we hire mostly PhDs, I am sometimes surprised that some of them got into grad school.
While I agree with many points of the article - specifically that a security professional must have an unusual mindset - I am troubled that the examples leave out the cost-benefit analysis. As an example, the article correctly points out the vulnerability associated with picking up "your car" from a service department. All you need is a last name, no ID. This is an obvious vulnerability. On the other hand, the service department is motivated to make the process as streamlined as possible for its customers. Demanding IDs, etc., will slow down the process. The more cumbersome the process, the more likely customers are to use a competitor. Therefore, they need to trade security with cars to the cost of loosing customers.
I am reminded of the time that I test drove a new car. All the dealership wanted was a photocopy of my driver license, and they let me drive the car off the lot for an extended test drive. Since driver licenses are relatively easy to fake, I wondered how often cars are stolen. I asked, and was told they are stolen on occasion, but insurance covers it. My point, they did the cost-benefit analysis, and decided on an insecure method.
...The debate over Real ID and sensitivity to creation of any form of national ID reveal a fear that anything that identifies us to others will intrude on privacy . This has led to a preoccupation with forms of ID rather than the fundamental question of how we can reliably identify ourselves to each other....
This quote suggests that they miss the whole point of the debate over Real ID. I would argue that the main point of the opposition to Real ID was to oppose anything that make it easier for the government to reliably ID us.
...While anonymity implies privacy, it does not confer it. We delude ourselves into thinking we have privacy if the person next to us doesn't know our name...
Again this misses the point of the Real ID debate. While making it difficult for the government to ID does not prevent them from IDing us, it helps. It also helps prevent the government from retaliating against protesters. It does not prevent it, but makes it harder. That is why protesters frequently cover their faces. That is why protesters want to make it difficult for the government to track their travels.
Even the courts have found that anonymity is important component of freedom of speech. (Along with freedom of association.).
I'm trying to figure out why the summary calls this document "shocking." Interesting yes, shocking no. It is well known that the law requires VOIP providers to maintain a capability for law enforcement agencies to wiretap. This requirement has been around for years, and is completely consistent with older "Plain Old Telephone Service." Its not like CALEA is hidden. You can find its website with a quick google. The author of the summary seems to be conflating CALEA with the dustup with the Bush administration and unlawful wiretaps. They are separate issues. Conflating them helps no one.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is my biggest complaint about voice control. It is slower than keyboard and mouse. For example, when selecting text on a page, it is much faster to point and click then to say select "select tenth line down." If for no other no other reason than I had to count the lines to know to select the tenth one. We see this everyday when we talk to people. A large part of the conversation involves hand gestures, head nods, etc. People say "look and this," and then point to the object. Just try having a conversation without using your hands, head nods, etc. Its slower, and much more verbose.
...a system of prison design whereby everybody could be seen from one central point, with the upshot being that prisoners learnt to modulate their behaviour -- because they never knew if they were being watched...
I think the closest thing to this prison is reality tv. The cast is constantly surrounded by film crews and cameras. And one of the common threads in post-show interviews is that the "actors" forget about the cameras. They admit, that at first, they are very conscious of them, and moderate their behavior. However, they inevitably say that after awhile the film crews become part of the background, and that they start ignoring them.
That is a very different issue from whether the cameras should exist. There are very real privacy issues. However, I do not believe most people will change their behavior.
...a far cry from the often rebellious and violent machines that often inhabit Western science fiction...
This type of statement is frequently used to explain this is why Western society doesn't embrace robots. In my view, this has very little to do with it. Western societies don't embrace robots because most forms of automated interaction have been vastly annoying. Who doesn't love calling a company and getting "Press 3 for customer service" and going thru ten menus before getting a human who can actually help. Who doesn't love help systems on computers that try to figure out what you're doing and help you. "It looks like you're trying to write a letter, may I help?" No! Just stop annoying me. How about voice recognition systems that are iffy at best. No I did not say "Got my first real sex dream, I was 5 at the time." I said, "Got my first real six string, bought it at the five-and-dime." The list goes no. Once more user friendly systems are developed I have no doubt that robots and similar systems will be widely accepted.
...the web browser has become the new OS...the vast majority of people only care about 2 types of files: MP3s and digital photos. Even Word documents are becoming marginalized now...
Many companies for various reasons - safeguarding proprietary information, trade secrets, etc. - have no desire to store their business documents on "Google's servers." Nor do I expect that to change in the near future. And while your assertions about file formats may be true for home users, it certainly is not true for many business users. Word, Excel and Powerpoint are as important as ever in the business world. In this regard, Vista falls flat, previous versions of MS Office have all the functionality needed. Therefore, there is no pressing desire to upgrade.
...In only 3 years almost everybody discontinued their phone subscription - everybody has at least one mobile phone...
I don't live in Finland, so I can't speak from personal experience, but your statement is at odds with news reports. As I understand it, while cellphone penetration is very high in Europe, so is landline penetration. IIn both Europe and the US, about 80 percent have a cellphone. And a comparable percentage have landlines.
In the US, many of my friends have tried dropping their landlines. However, a large fraction get them back because of the higher quality of service. Certainly, I vastly prefer the landline quality, it sounds so much better.
The short answer is that you're being naive, no tin foil hat is needed. The B-2 is not untrackable, just difficult for radars to track. And our major adversaries have other information on its status. For example, China and Russia have spy satellites and can see that aircraft haven't left the hangers in a while. Or a spy can have a home near the runways and report back on how often they fly. Furthermore, an a airplane crash is difficult to hide. Since US policy is to ground all similar aircraft after a crash, it would not take much of leap of logic to assume we would do it in this case. My point, the announcement gave the "bad guys" very little information.
...How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?...
It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...
While it might be legitimate to look at a society's level of freedom, I don't believe the RSF study does this in any meaningful way. How do you do a meaningfully compare the impact of the mafia in Italy to the murder of Chauncey Bailey by a criminal organization in the US? Both are criminal organizations, but how do you compare their impact? And does this relate to a blogger, Josh Wolf, who may not have the protections that a reporter has in protecting sources? Is the RSF seriously saying that because someone talks about something in a blog, that the courts cannot subpoena the blogger for information relevant to a trial? While I think blogging requires some protection, an unlimited ability to avoid subpoenas by saying I'm a blogger would bring the court system to a stand still. My point, the disparate examples cited by RSF are impossible to quantify and rate. There are many reasonable questions about which is a more serious problem - the mafia, a murder, a subpoena? Hence their ratings are meaningless.
I have issues with the RSF methodology. They conflate two problems, government suppression of speech and other groups suppressing speech. For example, Italy fares poorly not because of government action but because "journalists continue to be under threat from mafia groups." And one of the strikes against the US is the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which appears to have been a criminal act due to his investigation of "Your Black Muslim Bakery," and not due to government suppression. Only a fraction of the issues are directly due to the government, for example the jailing of Josh Wolf because of his refusal to turn over video tapes subpoenaed in an arson investigation. And in that example, there is plenty of grey. My point, is that the RSF rankings need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I wish everyone who believes in grand conspiracy theories could work in Washington DC for a couple of years. They would then realize that most conspiracies are a load of bull. The vast majority of the government is run by civil servants that are NOT political appointees. And having worked in Washington, if you get a stupid political appointee as a boss, the system has a lot of inertia, and tends to wait them out. Look at the track record for most appointees, based on my experience, most of them don't last four years. A couple of years is normal. Its easy for the bureaucracy to drag its feet for a couple of years. With a new appointee, you get new priorities. Problem solved. That and Washington leaks like a colander. Keeping a secret is impossible.
The article confuses two different problems. One problem is redaction, the other is a network spill. The two are very different. Redaction is "editing problem," deleting classified material from a document to make it unclassified. In a network spill, classified information is accidentally put on an unclassified system. A spill is a much more complicated problem. You have to determine how many systems were "infected," and sanitize those systems. And sanitizing may require the destruction/confiscation of the system. You also have to determine whether anyone without a clearance had access to the material. And I would guess that the vast majority of the cost is labor, not software.
Many posters seem to think this is a US-only problem. This issue is much bigger. For example, the EU has a large trade deficit with China. Since the EU and US economies are about the same order of magnitude, and their trade deficits with China are similarly sized. I would argue that their economies have similar issues. All this discussion about exporting jobs, exporting factories, etc. needs to consider this.
The author needs to study history a little more. One example -
all he would need to do is go back to the groovy 60s and introduce home recorders so people can make their own compilations
I was in high school in he 70s. My friends and I routinely made our own 8-track tapes. My group of friends would buy an album and several 8-track tapes and make copies.
I can think of rational reasons that the iPhone is not a good corporate phone, e.g., it needs integration with Exchange. But it won't put Powerpoint on the screen?? I'm sorry, any corporate drone that tried to show me a Powerpoint presentation on a phone would get kicked out of my office.
...When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting?...
But is the reverse true? Can you be a good parent without doing SOME spying. The key word being some. Any good parent should be aware of the people their child associates with and the activities in which their child participates. To know these things requires some invasion of the child's privacy. I will grant that spying can be excessive, a child should be allowed some privacy. But on the other hand, the answer is not zero spying.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the UK, but in the US they measure unemployment using several different metrics. Some of those metrics are designed to capture things like discouraged workers. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the following metrics labeled U-1 to U-6, but generally the press only talks about U-3:
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor
I'm not sure that any of these capture your specific point, but the BLS does look at different aspects of the problem.
Actually, I doubt that this will be a problem. Such language is fairly common, it is known as the most favored nations clause
A lesson that I learned a long time ago, keep your work life and home life separate. The attorneys for your workplace will have the company's interest at heart, not yours. Our company has a fairly liberal computer policy. You can use workplace computers for personal use as long as it does not interfere with work or break any laws. Nonetheless, in our ethics training, it was pointed out that if the company is sued, they may be required to give my computer to the other side. And they will. And anything private on it is open to discovery. They advised keep work and home separate. So I have separate email accounts, separate computers, etc. Never let the two mix.
Many of these decisions are made by Congress, not DOE. As part of the President's Budget submission, DOE submits a budget proposal to Congress. Congress then goes through that budget. As part of their Constitutional duties, Congress frequently says "you're spending too much money here, not enough there." Congress passes the budget, and the President generally signs it. DOE is then stuck with the budget it is given. While DOE has some discretion in moving money around because of unforeseen circumstances, it does not have a free hand. Furthermore, frequently through the committee reports, Congress provides "guidance." In essence saying, "We, the Congress, put this money here for a reason, you better not move it, or there will be hell to pay." Federal agencies pay a lot of attention to "Congressional language." Furthermore, there is a problem in DC known as the "color of money." Congress puts money into different accounts. Frequently, the law says this color of money (e.g., money for salaries) cannot be used for other things (e.g., building new buildings). Added all together, there is a limit on what federal agencies can do.
My point may have been too subtle. I don't trust either the Democrats or the Republicans. In the case of the Clinton problem, I have some first hand knowledge. My neighbor works at the White House and is one of the worker bees involved in both fiascos. He also happens to be a Republican. During the Clinton administration, I was at a neighborhood party, when another neighbor, also a Republican, was screaming "The Clintons are caught in a cover up." The worker bee neighbor says, "No no, we screwed up the backups." Watching two Republicans attack one another, with one defending the Clintons was a highlight of my life. FYI, some of the email was never recovered, for pretty much the same reason as today. On both, occasions - under Clinton and Bush - the worker bees claimed to have written over old backups.
In my mind, the amusing thing is that this has happened before... under the Clinton administration. Remember Travelgate? Remember the lost emails that the White House couldn't find? You would think someone would learn. Or should I believe that maybe Democrats and Republicans have something to gain from poor email archives?
I have to disagree. While in the US there is a grade inflation in many liberal arts courses, my experience is that this is less of a problem in the engineering and sciences. In my job, I do a lot of interviewing for technical positions. And I think you would be surprised at the number of C's and D's I see on undergraduate transcripts. Since we hire mostly PhDs, I am sometimes surprised that some of them got into grad school.
While I agree with many points of the article - specifically that a security professional must have an unusual mindset - I am troubled that the examples leave out the cost-benefit analysis. As an example, the article correctly points out the vulnerability associated with picking up "your car" from a service department. All you need is a last name, no ID. This is an obvious vulnerability. On the other hand, the service department is motivated to make the process as streamlined as possible for its customers. Demanding IDs, etc., will slow down the process. The more cumbersome the process, the more likely customers are to use a competitor. Therefore, they need to trade security with cars to the cost of loosing customers.
I am reminded of the time that I test drove a new car. All the dealership wanted was a photocopy of my driver license, and they let me drive the car off the lot for an extended test drive. Since driver licenses are relatively easy to fake, I wondered how often cars are stolen. I asked, and was told they are stolen on occasion, but insurance covers it. My point, they did the cost-benefit analysis, and decided on an insecure method.
Even the courts have found that anonymity is important component of freedom of speech. (Along with freedom of association.).
I'm trying to figure out why the summary calls this document "shocking." Interesting yes, shocking no. It is well known that the law requires VOIP providers to maintain a capability for law enforcement agencies to wiretap. This requirement has been around for years, and is completely consistent with older "Plain Old Telephone Service." Its not like CALEA is hidden. You can find its website with a quick google. The author of the summary seems to be conflating CALEA with the dustup with the Bush administration and unlawful wiretaps. They are separate issues. Conflating them helps no one.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is my biggest complaint about voice control. It is slower than keyboard and mouse. For example, when selecting text on a page, it is much faster to point and click then to say select "select tenth line down." If for no other no other reason than I had to count the lines to know to select the tenth one. We see this everyday when we talk to people. A large part of the conversation involves hand gestures, head nods, etc. People say "look and this," and then point to the object. Just try having a conversation without using your hands, head nods, etc. Its slower, and much more verbose.
That is a very different issue from whether the cameras should exist. There are very real privacy issues. However, I do not believe most people will change their behavior.
The short answer is that you're being naive, no tin foil hat is needed. The B-2 is not untrackable, just difficult for radars to track. And our major adversaries have other information on its status. For example, China and Russia have spy satellites and can see that aircraft haven't left the hangers in a while. Or a spy can have a home near the runways and report back on how often they fly. Furthermore, an a airplane crash is difficult to hide. Since US policy is to ground all similar aircraft after a crash, it would not take much of leap of logic to assume we would do it in this case. My point, the announcement gave the "bad guys" very little information.
While it might be legitimate to look at a society's level of freedom, I don't believe the RSF study does this in any meaningful way. How do you do a meaningfully compare the impact of the mafia in Italy to the murder of Chauncey Bailey by a criminal organization in the US? Both are criminal organizations, but how do you compare their impact? And does this relate to a blogger, Josh Wolf, who may not have the protections that a reporter has in protecting sources? Is the RSF seriously saying that because someone talks about something in a blog, that the courts cannot subpoena the blogger for information relevant to a trial? While I think blogging requires some protection, an unlimited ability to avoid subpoenas by saying I'm a blogger would bring the court system to a stand still. My point, the disparate examples cited by RSF are impossible to quantify and rate. There are many reasonable questions about which is a more serious problem - the mafia, a murder, a subpoena? Hence their ratings are meaningless.
I have issues with the RSF methodology. They conflate two problems, government suppression of speech and other groups suppressing speech. For example, Italy fares poorly not because of government action but because "journalists continue to be under threat from mafia groups." And one of the strikes against the US is the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which appears to have been a criminal act due to his investigation of "Your Black Muslim Bakery," and not due to government suppression. Only a fraction of the issues are directly due to the government, for example the jailing of Josh Wolf because of his refusal to turn over video tapes subpoenaed in an arson investigation. And in that example, there is plenty of grey. My point, is that the RSF rankings need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I wish everyone who believes in grand conspiracy theories could work in Washington DC for a couple of years. They would then realize that most conspiracies are a load of bull. The vast majority of the government is run by civil servants that are NOT political appointees. And having worked in Washington, if you get a stupid political appointee as a boss, the system has a lot of inertia, and tends to wait them out. Look at the track record for most appointees, based on my experience, most of them don't last four years. A couple of years is normal. Its easy for the bureaucracy to drag its feet for a couple of years. With a new appointee, you get new priorities. Problem solved. That and Washington leaks like a colander. Keeping a secret is impossible.
The article confuses two different problems. One problem is redaction, the other is a network spill. The two are very different. Redaction is "editing problem," deleting classified material from a document to make it unclassified. In a network spill, classified information is accidentally put on an unclassified system. A spill is a much more complicated problem. You have to determine how many systems were "infected," and sanitize those systems. And sanitizing may require the destruction/confiscation of the system. You also have to determine whether anyone without a clearance had access to the material. And I would guess that the vast majority of the cost is labor, not software.
Many posters seem to think this is a US-only problem. This issue is much bigger. For example, the EU has a large trade deficit with China. Since the EU and US economies are about the same order of magnitude, and their trade deficits with China are similarly sized. I would argue that their economies have similar issues. All this discussion about exporting jobs, exporting factories, etc. needs to consider this.
I can think of rational reasons that the iPhone is not a good corporate phone, e.g., it needs integration with Exchange. But it won't put Powerpoint on the screen?? I'm sorry, any corporate drone that tried to show me a Powerpoint presentation on a phone would get kicked out of my office.