What if annual security training was mandatory for all the IT staff connected with law enforcement IT equipment...
I don't see why that last phrase is on there, i.e., why the statement should be restricted to law enforcement. IT staff in every internet-connected company which stores data on other people (which is most companies larger than a mom&pop gas station these days) have a responsibility to the people that data pertains to.
Every time I hear about another database getting hacked, I blame the idiots who let it happen. It makes me really leery of doing simple things like buying *anything* from *anywhere* with a credit card, because I am entrusting the seller to keep my data secure. And so many of them demonstrate that they have not earned that trust.
Do you think doctors' offices maintain good data security? Or the local pizza place that has an account for you? It's pretty amazing how open our data is to those who wish to harvest it.
But the sad truth is that in the end IT is seen as a cost center that needs to be minimzed. And security... well, that's like insurance. You don't need it until you need it (at which point of course it is far too late).
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. A lot of your argument flows from this point
Every significant piece of legislation is the result of a lot of compromises to get something that is acceptable to the majority.
and that's just the point... that is only the case for significant legislation. Most decisions do not go through that process because they are not significant to a majority. This applies decisions that are not energizing to a large number of people either because they are boring or because they are small scale.
I don't think that Allowing everyone to participate in every decision is likely to fundamentally change the attitudes of members of a community, for the reasons explained above: most people will feel that their specific view is being ignored, and therefore they will feel that participating is not really a valuable use of their time. Just like they feel now.
How does this follow? There are many times where a person has a fantastic solution to a big issue, but they can't get it to appeal to their representative so they give up. An open system where anyone can contribute has the potential (if constructed well) to allow good ideas to be noticed and brought to more peoples' attention.
A legitimate point in a limited system. But the object of collaborative governance is to scale from very small systems up to eventually being applied to all democratic decision-making. At that point, the idea of a few hot-button issues won't be evident. There will be millions of them at different scales and in different communities. Your hot button and mine will be free to be different.
More to the point, however, there won't be yes/no options like for a law that does or does not allow immigration into one geographic region. Instead, there will be an array of potential solutions. Large numbers of people might get excited about one issue, but it won't be "us" vs. "them." It will be: "which idea works best for everyone?"
And putting the two above together: there won't be politicians who inherently force issues into yes/no debates. Politicians thrive on dissent, because it gets people excited to love them and hate the other guy. When you take the politicians and the black/white decision-making out of the mix, the propensity for singular hot buttons diminishes enormously.
The article complains that obviously fake products are allowed to have fake reviews, and then makes the assumption that fake reviews must be allowed for real products. This does not necessarily follow. It might; but it seems a bit more likely that Amazon just might put a little more care into reviews of real products than into fake ones. I have no idea... I'm just pointing out the fallacy.
Oh yeah. Now that you mention it: everyone who walks into an airport is guilty of being a mass-murderer unless deep tissue scans of their large intestine and intensive manipulation of their genitals can prove that they are conditionally/potentially innocent.
Our privacy policy: We sell your data. You get our content for "free." Deal?
Correction: You get access to our content for "free". We will sue you, your family, and all your friends and neighbors to the 9th level of Hell should you choose to infringe on our intellectual property.
Yeah, and AV companies have tons of 50' VGA cables. I am pretty sure I have seen a projector's DVI port run to a computer's DVI port with VGA adapters on both ends to accommodate the VGA cable.
I dunno, in the professional photography world there's a lot of apps available for the iPad with the capability to edit images, manage your collection, etc... etc... If you know what you're doing with your camera, the image generally doesn't need much in the way of editing.
Then effectively you're creating content on the camera, and just playing with it on the other device. Seems to prove my point more than refute it.
My example was graphics, and they don't have to be billboard-sized... let's see you create a professional brochure on a phone.:)
More broadly: anything creative is better done on a computer than a tablet.
A tablet (etc.) is for consumption of content. They rock for accessibility and convenience: just what you need when you are passively consuming content, such as reading or watching. Even gaming counts, as you are not putting anything in to the device: just getting entertainment out of it.
But if you are trying to create something (prose, music, code, graphics, databases, and so on and so on), then a full-fledged computer is vastly superior.
Maybe this will change someday, as the interfaces for devices improve and the apps develop. But in the short-term, I defy someone to create billboard-quality graphics, commercial-grade websites, or a publication-level novel on a tablet. I suppose it can be done, but it would be a heck of a lot easier with a full computer.
That is an interesting take. Let the advertisers target the hyper-consumerists (ie, the majority) and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, then they might object to giving "deadbeats" access to "free" content which is ad-based. Why allow us to watch X if we're not going to pony up for the shiny things being advertised between bits of content?
Not really. If a headline read: "US Launches Largest Spy Satellite," wouldn't you wonder, "largest compared to what?"
The "ever" tells you that it is compared to all other satellites previously launched. Though, sure, "to date" would have sounded more sophisticated.":)
I think it's turning out more like shuffling governors in the Ottoman or British Empires. A slow, gradual, slightly-pathetic decline as one setback overshadows another.
Slashdot Mirror
But in this context, with the translation looking like it is the original text, people will be much more likely to take it at its face value.
ATM, this post is modded zero-Troll. For reals? Has everyone lost their sense of humor? Wow.
Like the OP really thinks that everyone in the world should be taught to speak English instead of the "gibberish" they speak now??
Maybe it has something to do with geeks leaning toward autism and autistics taking things too literally?
But for what it is worth, iPads are still crushing the competition, even in corporate IT.
Briefer version: In USA, shoebox holds you.
The Wikileaks environment looks pretty sweet: plants everywhere makes a completely different environment.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jukri/4944923254/
And WTF does "PC Load Letter" mean???
Sorry, I take that back... mom&pop gas stations probably have internet-connected data on you too.
What if annual security training was mandatory for all the IT staff connected with law enforcement IT equipment...
I don't see why that last phrase is on there, i.e., why the statement should be restricted to law enforcement. IT staff in every internet-connected company which stores data on other people (which is most companies larger than a mom&pop gas station these days) have a responsibility to the people that data pertains to.
Every time I hear about another database getting hacked, I blame the idiots who let it happen. It makes me really leery of doing simple things like buying *anything* from *anywhere* with a credit card, because I am entrusting the seller to keep my data secure. And so many of them demonstrate that they have not earned that trust.
Do you think doctors' offices maintain good data security? Or the local pizza place that has an account for you? It's pretty amazing how open our data is to those who wish to harvest it.
But the sad truth is that in the end IT is seen as a cost center that needs to be minimzed. And security... well, that's like insurance. You don't need it until you need it (at which point of course it is far too late).
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. A lot of your argument flows from this point
Every significant piece of legislation is the result of a lot of compromises to get something that is acceptable to the majority.
and that's just the point... that is only the case for significant legislation. Most decisions do not go through that process because they are not significant to a majority. This applies decisions that are not energizing to a large number of people either because they are boring or because they are small scale.
I don't think that Allowing everyone to participate in every decision is likely to fundamentally change the attitudes of members of a community, for the reasons explained above: most people will feel that their specific view is being ignored, and therefore they will feel that participating is not really a valuable use of their time. Just like they feel now.
How does this follow? There are many times where a person has a fantastic solution to a big issue, but they can't get it to appeal to their representative so they give up. An open system where anyone can contribute has the potential (if constructed well) to allow good ideas to be noticed and brought to more peoples' attention.
A legitimate point in a limited system. But the object of collaborative governance is to scale from very small systems up to eventually being applied to all democratic decision-making. At that point, the idea of a few hot-button issues won't be evident. There will be millions of them at different scales and in different communities. Your hot button and mine will be free to be different.
More to the point, however, there won't be yes/no options like for a law that does or does not allow immigration into one geographic region. Instead, there will be an array of potential solutions. Large numbers of people might get excited about one issue, but it won't be "us" vs. "them." It will be: "which idea works best for everyone?"
And putting the two above together: there won't be politicians who inherently force issues into yes/no debates. Politicians thrive on dissent, because it gets people excited to love them and hate the other guy. When you take the politicians and the black/white decision-making out of the mix, the propensity for singular hot buttons diminishes enormously.
The article complains that obviously fake products are allowed to have fake reviews, and then makes the assumption that fake reviews must be allowed for real products. This does not necessarily follow. It might; but it seems a bit more likely that Amazon just might put a little more care into reviews of real products than into fake ones. I have no idea... I'm just pointing out the fallacy.
Oh yeah. Now that you mention it: everyone who walks into an airport is guilty of being a mass-murderer unless deep tissue scans of their large intestine and intensive manipulation of their genitals can prove that they are conditionally/potentially innocent.
I prefer:
Our privacy policy: We sell your data. You get our content for "free." Deal?
Correction: You get access to our content for "free". We will sue you, your family, and all your friends and neighbors to the 9th level of Hell should you choose to infringe on our intellectual property.
...which now includes your data.
You know, there is a way to have group rule without mob rule.
Huh. I wonder where this weird idea of "innocent until proven guilty" came from... Hm.
Mini-DisplayPort, as evidenced here:
http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=DisplayPort
Yeah, and AV companies have tons of 50' VGA cables. I am pretty sure I have seen a projector's DVI port run to a computer's DVI port with VGA adapters on both ends to accommodate the VGA cable.
I dunno, in the professional photography world there's a lot of apps available for the iPad with the capability to edit images, manage your collection, etc... etc... If you know what you're doing with your camera, the image generally doesn't need much in the way of editing.
Then effectively you're creating content on the camera, and just playing with it on the other device. Seems to prove my point more than refute it.
My example was graphics, and they don't have to be billboard-sized... let's see you create a professional brochure on a phone. :)
More broadly: anything creative is better done on a computer than a tablet.
A tablet (etc.) is for consumption of content. They rock for accessibility and convenience: just what you need when you are passively consuming content, such as reading or watching. Even gaming counts, as you are not putting anything in to the device: just getting entertainment out of it.
But if you are trying to create something (prose, music, code, graphics, databases, and so on and so on), then a full-fledged computer is vastly superior.
Maybe this will change someday, as the interfaces for devices improve and the apps develop. But in the short-term, I defy someone to create billboard-quality graphics, commercial-grade websites, or a publication-level novel on a tablet. I suppose it can be done, but it would be a heck of a lot easier with a full computer.
That is an interesting take. Let the advertisers target the hyper-consumerists (ie, the majority) and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, then they might object to giving "deadbeats" access to "free" content which is ad-based. Why allow us to watch X if we're not going to pony up for the shiny things being advertised between bits of content?
I think they are more commonly known as "Borg."
Not really. If a headline read: "US Launches Largest Spy Satellite," wouldn't you wonder, "largest compared to what?"
The "ever" tells you that it is compared to all other satellites previously launched. Though, sure, "to date" would have sounded more sophisticated." :)
I think it's turning out more like shuffling governors in the Ottoman or British Empires. A slow, gradual, slightly-pathetic decline as one setback overshadows another.
Simple math:
Ironman - man = Terminator
I dont think tinfoil is going to protect my skull against this thing.
I can't wait for the merger with the Firesheep arms race.
NeverSheep, EverBlack, DoubleNeverFireCookieSheep, FrenticEverFireBlackCookie, and eventually... OhYeah? and Yeah! And maybe YoMamma too.