Yes. 'Forcing' someone else to donate in return for your donation is horrible, just horrible. How can they live with themselves!
I don't think you understand how these chains work. Everyone wanted to donate. It is just beautiful, incredible, not fueled by greed as you imply.
Actually, I don't think it is nearly as pretty as you suggest.
Fred needs a kidney. I have a kidney that Fred could use. However, I could care less about Fred personally so I can't really be bothered to donate a kidney to Fred. On the other hand, Jake also needs a kidney and I care a lot about Jake and would do anything for him. Unfortunately, Jake can't use my Kidney. But, Sue has a kidney that Jake could use, but Sue doesn't care a bit about Jake and would rather see him die than give him a kidney. Fortunately Sue would love to give her kidney to Fred but can't. So, even though both Sue and I would rather see somebody die than give them our kidney, we can broker a swap where we give a kidney to somebody else so that somebody we actually do care about does get a kidney.
It is just an extension of the general principle where most of us would go out of our way to help somebody we know, but not a complete stranger. Since most strangers are known to somebody else, that can be exploited so that we end up doing something nice for a stranger anyway. Sue and I aren't any worse than anybody else - we're just not going to give up an organ we might need ourselves for somebody we've never met.
Look it is great that in the end kidneys got donated to folks that need them. However, this does nothing for somebody who has no friends who are able to donate a kidney, because they can't get into the game.
I think we really need a better solution. These kinds of deals really amount to bartering for organs already, Why not just let people sell them, and watch people line up and sell kidneys that they'd never donate?
Beautiful libertarianism. The life saving organ transplants go to the wealthiest first, it's the free market and it's the fairest way.
This is zero-sum thinking. Most life saving organ transplants go to the grave right now. If there was a financial incentive to donate, then there would be a LOT more organs to go around. Sure, they would go to the wealthy first as you point out, but there aren't that many wealthy people out there (by definition), so many more will go to the rest of us.
There isn't any aspect of life where the wealthy don't benefit more than the rest of us. If that were a reason not to do something, then for the most part nobody would do much of anything.
Is for the US to punch back twice as hard. I would suggest having the NSA pillage their military system and then do a data dump at nsa.gov/china/fuckyou.torrent
The US has a lot more to lose playing this sort of game. Just tell the Chinese to get their act together and firewall their network at the border until they do.
If the NSA can breach your systems than so can the chinese probably. So if you want to keep the chinese out... make it tough enough that the NSA can't get in.
Good luck with that. When there is no cost for mounting an attack, an attacker will almost always have an advantage over a defender.
This is like arguing that if random hoodlums keep breaking into your house you should simply upgrade the security of your house until they're unable to break in. If criminals can attempt to breach your house without any risk of punishment, then you've lost. There isn't a wall built by man which can't be breached by man. Sure, you can invest enough that it isn't worth their trouble but we'd all be broke if we actually did it that way. Instead we hire police, and instead of letting people hammer away at our doors all night long with construction equipment, we call the cops and they haul the criminals off to jail.
The problem with the internet is that we treat it differently from everything else. If you're in a nation that turns a blind eye to hacking (or sponsors it), then you can hack away at targets all day long without any real risk of punishment.
So what's your stateful firewall doing in the meantime? Sitting around and deactivated?
I have two. They're both doing their jobs fine. I also have a DHCP server which isn't running on the same host as either of the firewalls/gateways.
The problem isn't with the stateful firewalls. The problem is getting all the clients to use the correct one. That is bad enough using DHCP and NAT. I don't really see any simple way to accomplish it with the typical router advertising approach to IPv6. You'd have two gateways both offering routes, and I don't want every host on the network just picking whichever one it wants to.
The problem is that it will never die. Therefore, you'll still need all that cruft to work around it.
With NAT you worry about the outside network on your gateway, and the inside network everywhere else. Without NAT you have to worry about the outside network everywhere. Anytime your prefix changes, your internal addressing changes. If you have multiple gateways, then you have multiple sets of internal addresses that are changing.
Getting rid of NAT makes sense in theory. It isn't always as easy in practice, and it gets harder the more you deviate from a bunch of chromebooks browsing facebook, which is a situation where NAT doesn't really cause any problems in the first place.
The fight against NAT is actually, from my point of view, the thing holding people back. Sure the IoT is cool and your firewalling should be in place, etc. but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with NAT because just about every device on the net today is using it, and it doesn't cause enough problems to care about for the most part. However it solves an enormous number of problems, including quite what to do about an IPv4->IPv6 transition where you don't want to have to find and renumber every damn device with a MAC that's on your premises (or that probably don't support IPv6 anyway).
Agree, and I think another likely source of frustration will be when everybody is in a mad rush to start deploying protocols that break with NAT.
A big problem with assigning globally-routable addresses within your network is that anytime your prefix changes, you have to renumber your network. Everybody seems to live in some fantasy-land where ISPs will give everybody static prefixes - it won't happen. First, they'll want to be able to charge more for those. Second, keeping it dynamic lets them renumber their own network anytime it suits their fancy.
I run all my traffic through a VPN and I have two gateways on my LAN as a result. With NAT that is no big deal - the DHCP server just tells everybody which gateway to use and the only system that needs any real care is the VPN gateway, and any systems that need to be exceptions. If I want to use globally-routable addresses I imagine that would get a bit more complex, as now I have to distribute two sets of dynamically changing addresses across my network. If the VPN prefix changes, then most of the LAN needs a new routable address. If the ISP prefix changes then the VPN server and any other exceptions that talk direct to the ISP need new prefixes.
Most likely I'll just stick with link-local addresses and continue to use NAT. After all, one of the points of using a VPN is to not expose all my network internals anyway.
A victory in a US court for Sikhs For Justice will remain a hollow victory because it would be unenforceable outside the jurisdiction of that US court (unless Facebook is willing to be in contempt of an Indian court order - which will be fully enforceable in India).
Oh, a victory in a US court could be quite effective. Suppose a US judge orders Facebook to pay $1M/day as long as the site is down. They can't actually put the site back up since as you point out then India would punish them for it. However, they can provide a steady revenue stream to Sikhs for Justice. Then the judge can get frustrated and keep ratcheting up the fines until they are economically damaging to Facebook. At that point Facebook is basically forced to leave India, since they will pay more in fines than they make from being present in India.
I agree that companies have to obey the law where they do business, but as you point out earlier in your post, there is nothing that forces Facebook to do business in India.
If Facebook pulled out of India then there is no longer a conflict of law - they can unblock the page and of course India could firewall all of Facebook but Facebook itself is completely in the clear legally.
I'm not sure how likely a court is to take action like this, but the US effectively exports its laws all the time. That's why everybody loves the US!:)
There is a tendency in big companies to glorify small jobs.
At work there was a need for somebody to do a fairly administrative task. There was quite a bit of work - probably the better part of a full-time equivalent.
Now, if they had posted a job for $15-20/hr they could have hired somebody exceptionally qualified to do the work, and they would have done the work diligently and been happy to have the job.
Instead they used this as an excuse to hire an advanced degree position for probably $70/hr total cost, and then make it just a part of their duties splitting the work up among a few roles.
Once hired, predictably everybody looked down on the work as demeaning and did anything they could to get involved in more complex projects to have an excuse to not do the work. So, the work was done less-effectively and the original demand that justified the position in the first place was basically left unmet.
The task was something any high-school graduate could do, but it was still vital to the operation of the company. Indeed, it was actually a task fairly central to the mission of the organization.
So, the end result is that the mission was still done poorly, at 4x the cost. All because nobody wants to admit that some of the work done in their organization could be performed by a low-cost employee.
increasing spending on strategic projects from 5 percent to 40 percent
Rarely does this sort of change involve spending more money in absolute terms. Most likely people doing stuff like support were retasked, outsourced, or simply cut.
Most of the stuff in the summary sounds like a good move, but I've seen companies that were fairly short-sighted in making these kinds of moves. At work we've been focusing on "strategic projects" for a long time now in belt-tightening mode and it seems like the biggest result is that every department under the sun has sprouted its own mini IT department that does all the stuff that IT stopped doing, usually less efficiently than it would be done if centralized.
When IT cuts a service that really was necessary, the result usually involves a net loss of money.
They really need to build performance testing into the system. That is, ensure that 10% of all passengers who are screened have something that needs to be detected. There are many ways to accomplish this. Such a change solves two problems at once.
The first problem is the obvious one. How do you know the system is working. With continuous testing, then you know at all times exactly how well it is working. You also have an easy way to evaluate how changes in procedure help/hurt, since you have continuous data collection on performance.
The other problem is more important, but perhaps less obvious. Security screeners are like people on watch duty in the military. They stare out at an empty ocean, and if you do things in the most obvious way then in a typical shift they observe exactly nothing 99% of the time. Or they have lots of false positives, that then cause trouble, and if anything that can tend to result in negative feedback that discourages the reporting of true observations. When you stare at a whole lot of nothing for a long time, your brain tends to zone out, and expecting to find nothing, the brain manages to find that even when there is something to be found.
If 10% of all passengers being screened were controls where something needed to be found, then you have to maintain a constant state of vigil. If for whatever reason that vigil is broken you get immediate feedback, and positive reinforcement for when you pay attention. Sentry duty becomes more like a game, or at least somewhat more engaging for the brain.
There are lots of ways to make it work. If nothing else you can hand random passengers fake weapons and have them stick them in their bags at the start of the line. Or, you could modify the equipment to generate a false positive at random (the metal detector goes off with nothing in it, or the x-ray machine adds a picture of a weapon to the image). Before doing an actual search that would pester the passenger, you first push a button that removes any artifacts from the results, and then the machine registers a successful response and then shows the true image, which then gets re-screened. That would result in fairly minimal delay to passengers, and a much better security environment.
Of course your beta cells don't know about any of this either and they do OK. The do sense stress hormones, so if you're worried, they might pick up on the impending run. Otherwise, they make do with blood glucose levels.
Absolutely true, but I'd be interested in the latency in the new device compared to a pancreas. Existing pumps and continuous monitors have some latency associated with them, which means they'll never do quite as well as an actual pancreas if you're suddenly going to change your rate of glucose rise/fall.
Not this again. The truth is there has been NO ADVANCES in AI since the 1970's. NONE.
And therefore there never will be one?
That's a bit like saying that aircraft will never be invented because there was no progress on the topic between 350AD and 390AD.
I know people really really want to believe that Siri is AI, or a precursor to AI, but it isn't.
I don't consider either Siri or Google to be examples of AI per se. I think that when AI does come along it might end up incorporating some of the concepts that go into them, but it is hard to say at this point since nobody really knows how to build an AI.
Agree somewhat. There are a fair number of human jobs that can probably be automated in the fairly near future as "AI" has been getting better, especially for problems like visual/speech recognition which traditionally was a barrier to automation.
An AI that actually can innovate and is self-aware/etc would be a barrier to eliminating many jobs. At some point I think we'll cross that threshold and we'll see almost every job go away almost overnight (since such an AI could be used to improve itself and rapidly develop specific automation solutions for every job). However, that is of course a major advance and it is really hard to say how soon it will come.
So you are assuming that anyone whose job has been lost to automation is incapable of learning another job. That's insulting to the people you think you are helping.
No, I think that most whose jobs are lost to automation are incapable of learning another job.
I don't get why you consider this insulting. I think that my job will be automated one day, and I'll be incapable of getting a job. That is just reality - it isn't an insult that I'm going to be outsmarted by some super-human AI.
Unless you are fairly advanced in age already, I suspect that within our own lifetimes all people may become unemployable, as there is no function you or I perform which is not capable of being automated,
Your worldview is extremely limited, I fear, and you need to get out more.
Not sure what is "limited" about it. I'd consider a world where nobody has to work a paradise. It is only a problem if you expect people to earn their way through life. I think people have value beyond what they can "earn."
All jobs pay enough to live on?
"Not all jobs..."
You said, "Not all jobs are well-paying, but they pay enough to live on."
You said that not all jobs are well-paying. You also said that all jobs pay enough to live on. Or were you trying to say not all jobs pay enough to live on? I'll admit that english is a bit ambiguous in this statement. I'm asserting that not all jobs pay enough to live on. If you disagree, then I'll cite the walmart example. If you agree with me, then I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with people getting jobs and not getting public assistance.
something like 15% of the Walmart workforce receives food stamps.
What a sad world when Walmart becomes the gold standard in jobs.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me that simply having a job isn't really helpful, if it isn't well-paying. That was why I brought up the statistic.
Walmart is the sort of job that anybody can do, but it is only that way precisely because it is so low-paying. If they had to pay more, they would probably automate more.
You seem to think that I have a low view of "common" people. I've known many people I'd put into that category over the years and I don't have a low view of them at all. I've just observed that they toil constantly to barely make the rent, and many fail to even do that. You only consider that observation insulting because you seem to equate employ-ability with worth.
I think the day will come when nobody is employable. We're not there yet, but there is no reason to think that there is an upper-limit on the ability of AI, and plenty of reason to think that there is an upper-limit on human ability (short of humans modifying themselves, and basically becoming AI themselves). The problems of unemployment that are becoming increasingly worse are just the first signs of this.
What? When did I say anything about punishing anyone? I can only assume that you think that someone who has to go without a cellphone or internet because they don't have a job is being punished somehow.
A cellphone and internet access are common basic necessities these days. Sure, you could line poor people up in honeycombs and stick tubes for food, air, and waste into them and they could probably live somewhat-normal-duration lives at a minimal cost to society. I don't really see the point in that, when it is not particularly expensive to allow them to live at a somewhat higher standard of living.
I'm sorry, but "I don't want to look for a job" is not a disability. Neither is "my job was replaced by a robot, boo hoo, I shouldn't have to learn another job."
Of course not, if it were actually possible for them to learn another well-paying job. I assert that for most this is not the case. Unless you are fairly advanced in age already, I suspect that within our own lifetimes all people may become unemployable, as there is no function you or I perform which is not capable of being automated, and I can say that confidently not knowing what you do for a living. There is no artist, composer, scientist, programmer, or philosopher who has some ability that cannot be performed by a sufficiently advanced machine, since that is really all our brains are.
Not all jobs are well-paying, but they pay enough to live on.
All jobs pay enough to live on? That's a pretty bold assertion, considering that it has been estimated that something like 15% of the Walmart workforce receives food stamps.
That's a bit nebulous, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you believe talent to be in-born (which I do not) or earned (which I do). Either way, that argument can be applied to every skillful activity.
Certainly the argument can be applied to every skillful activity. My sense is that talent is a combination of predisposition and development. It has been demonstrated that learning skills at an early age can actually result in visually-observable changes in brain appearance (learn the violin at a young age and you can actually develop folds in the brain that look different), so there is obviously a learned component of talent. On the other hand, it is less clear to what degree those benefits are fixed at an early age, and whether some are fixed during embryonic development, or even by genetics.
At the very least, if you're born with severe mental disabilities, you probably won't be writing code anytime during your life.
I can also look back at my own life. There were many subjects where I excelled with ease compared to my classmates. I could walk away with an A on a test without studying at all, where others struggled to get Cs with extensive effort to learn the material. I doubt this was merely a matter of test-taking skills as the same applied to practical application of the material, and certainly there are other subjects where I find myself in the role of having to work hard to earn a mediocre grade.
Then I can look at people I know who have had brain injury. The brain isn't some magical concept - it is a physical machine. If you physically damage it, there are remarkable effects on everything from ability to personality. Somebody who was very intelligent before, and to a great degree after, will find themselves cut off from talents they had until that point. Is it so much of a stretch to think that some brains are born with varying degrees of talent, when we know there is natural variation in every other aspect of the human body?
That doesn't make literacy (computer or other) useless at all.
Re-read my post. You'll quickly discover that I agree with that completely.
I doubt he was intending to imply otherwise. You both agree that teaching kids coding skills is useful, but you disagree in your reasoning.
You likely believe that people should be exposed to a variety of disciplines because they're capable of excelling at any of them, and thus they should have the opportunity to decide what interests them most and pursue it.
He (and I) probably believe that people should be exposed to a variety of disciplines because that will help them to determine what they are capable of excelling at, and because they can probably master them to a degree where they can utilize them even if it isn't their primary focus.
Either way, we probably all agree that having an understanding of programming is important in almost any discipline one wants to work in. You would probably say that this creates an opportunity for everybody. I would tend to say that this will likely impose limits on many people regardless of their level of interest or effort, though in practice for many they'll be able to scrape by. There is no question that my view is more cynical/pessimistic, but I think this is really just a product of outmoded expectations. I have no expectation that a great artist should be forced to get a job working for Google to pay his bills. I have no expectation that that somebody with severe mental disabilities be able to get a job anywhere to pay his bills. I believe that we all should enrich society with whatever contributions we can make, and that society should accept us for who we are, and not what is most pragmatic.
Of course, and the same is true for me. However, I'm not average, and I suspect you aren't either.
If one of my more-average peers worked just as hard as I do and tried to get my job, it is unlikely that they would be hired. They're just not as capable of doing what I do for a living.
That doesn't make them any less valuable. It just makes them less employable.
What do you mean "Did YOU offer them a well-paying job?". Whatever happened to "why don't THEY (the people in the park) go out and THEY find a well-paying job?" Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Since when is it a company's responsibility to hire everyone in town?
I don't think it is anybody's responsibility to hire them. They should simply be given enough to live on somewhat comfortably, without having to work.
Most simply aren't employable, no matter how hard they try.
The average kid yes, the ones who chose to be druggies no.
The average kid in my high school class could barely grasp algebra. There are still a few good-paying jobs for people like this, but they're rapidly being eliminated, and only the most senior can hold them down. The ones who make a decent living tend to be exceptional in some way. That might be how well they communicate, how nice they look, how athletic they are, etc. However, it seems to me that average kids these days end up working retail for a wage that isn't even survivable without public assistance.
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
Who's responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of the person who has a job opening to personally ask each person on the planet if they want to fill it, or is it the responsibility of the potential employee to look in standard places where such offers are made public?
I bet exactly no employer is driving down to that park and saying "I'm hiring". I bet a lot more employers are putting ads in the newspaper, and a lot more are using the publicly-funded state employment bureau's job listings.
Of course nobody is going to walk up to them and offer them a well-paying job. It is also true that anybody hiring somebody for a well-paying job is unlikely to hire most of the folks you were complaining about.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
That's absolutely correct, because once a person learns to do a job there is absolutely no way that he could ever learn to do a different one, and anyone who would suggest that he do so is just suppressing the proletariat. Once a specific job at one plant is taken over by automation, everyone who ever did that job is now unemployable in any other job.
Most people performing tasks that are replaceable by automation will not be capable of performing any job which is not also replaceable by automation. Of course, some will be, but that minority is unlikely to be unemployed.
You would have a much stronger argument had you said that what prevents someone from knowing is the vast array of medically disabling conditions that allow disability pensions.
Actually, I am asserting that they're disabled, though not in any form that currently is granted a disability pension in most societies. The disabilities vary, but they're mostly mentally disabled, in the sense that their intelligence is not fairly well above-average, which is what is required to obtain a well-paying job. Granted, there are also many well-paying jobs that depend less on intelligence and more on other attributes, but for the most part those attributes are also fairly rare.
Take somebody who is completely paralyzed and unable to move, and also completely mentally retarded and unable to do more than maybe digest food spooned into their mouth. They lie on one end of a continuum. On the other end would be somebody with the intelligence of Steven Hawking and the prowess of an Olympic athlete. Virtually everybody falls somewhere in-between. At all points in time there has been a boundary below which people were simply unemployable. As technology advances, that line moves - people who were perfectly employable 1000 years ago are not employable today, because the jobs they were able to do are automated. For example, somebody who was mentally disabled and unable to even remember their name might still be able to earn a living wage by digging ditches 500 years ago. Today that would be unlikely - there is so little demand for manual labor that employers looking for such work can be more picky about who they hire.
At some point in time automation will get to a point where no human is employable - we'll simply be weaker and dumber than machines.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?
Yes. They may not be rocket scientists, doctors, or lawyers, but thank goodness those aren't the only jobs available. And I'm even more sure that the average kid who just left high school is capable, because I see a lot of average kids holding down jobs in the modern world today.
First, I said "well-paying jobs" and not "jobs." I'm not interested in how many average people can
I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+?
That is because we're taxing the wrong things. Earned income is not the lion's share of income in the US, and it tends to be the main source of income for people who have limited means.
But, the folks who pay income tax can't afford armies of lobbyists so that is where the taxes fall.
Just make the tax rate something like 0% below $50k/yr, 10% from $50-100k, 20% from $100k-500k, and then have it go up exponentially from there. Somebody making $1M/yr might have a 40% tax, somebody making $10M/yr might have an 80% tax, somebody making $100M/yr might have a 90% tax, somebody making $1B/yr might have a 99% tax, and so on.
Another option is to just tax all money transactions. Anytime money changes hands just charge 0.1% or something like that. For the poor, they'll end up paying an unintended 0.2% tax on the money they make and spend. Something like the financial sector will pay a much higher effective rate, and that is something like a third of the economy.
I walked from Potomac Avenue to the Navy Yard yesterday and came upon an entire community that relies upon government funded housing. They just hang out all day in a small park chatting with one another. They don't look like they're incapable of any sort of work.
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. 'Forcing' someone else to donate in return for your donation is horrible, just horrible. How can they live with themselves!
I don't think you understand how these chains work. Everyone wanted to donate. It is just beautiful, incredible, not fueled by greed as you imply.
Actually, I don't think it is nearly as pretty as you suggest.
Fred needs a kidney. I have a kidney that Fred could use. However, I could care less about Fred personally so I can't really be bothered to donate a kidney to Fred. On the other hand, Jake also needs a kidney and I care a lot about Jake and would do anything for him. Unfortunately, Jake can't use my Kidney. But, Sue has a kidney that Jake could use, but Sue doesn't care a bit about Jake and would rather see him die than give him a kidney. Fortunately Sue would love to give her kidney to Fred but can't. So, even though both Sue and I would rather see somebody die than give them our kidney, we can broker a swap where we give a kidney to somebody else so that somebody we actually do care about does get a kidney.
It is just an extension of the general principle where most of us would go out of our way to help somebody we know, but not a complete stranger. Since most strangers are known to somebody else, that can be exploited so that we end up doing something nice for a stranger anyway. Sue and I aren't any worse than anybody else - we're just not going to give up an organ we might need ourselves for somebody we've never met.
Look it is great that in the end kidneys got donated to folks that need them. However, this does nothing for somebody who has no friends who are able to donate a kidney, because they can't get into the game.
I think we really need a better solution. These kinds of deals really amount to bartering for organs already, Why not just let people sell them, and watch people line up and sell kidneys that they'd never donate?
Beautiful libertarianism. The life saving organ transplants go to the wealthiest first, it's the free market and it's the fairest way.
This is zero-sum thinking. Most life saving organ transplants go to the grave right now. If there was a financial incentive to donate, then there would be a LOT more organs to go around. Sure, they would go to the wealthy first as you point out, but there aren't that many wealthy people out there (by definition), so many more will go to the rest of us.
There isn't any aspect of life where the wealthy don't benefit more than the rest of us. If that were a reason not to do something, then for the most part nobody would do much of anything.
Is for the US to punch back twice as hard. I would suggest having the NSA pillage their military system and then do a data dump at nsa.gov/china/fuckyou.torrent
The US has a lot more to lose playing this sort of game. Just tell the Chinese to get their act together and firewall their network at the border until they do.
If the NSA can breach your systems than so can the chinese probably. So if you want to keep the chinese out... make it tough enough that the NSA can't get in.
Good luck with that. When there is no cost for mounting an attack, an attacker will almost always have an advantage over a defender.
This is like arguing that if random hoodlums keep breaking into your house you should simply upgrade the security of your house until they're unable to break in. If criminals can attempt to breach your house without any risk of punishment, then you've lost. There isn't a wall built by man which can't be breached by man. Sure, you can invest enough that it isn't worth their trouble but we'd all be broke if we actually did it that way. Instead we hire police, and instead of letting people hammer away at our doors all night long with construction equipment, we call the cops and they haul the criminals off to jail.
The problem with the internet is that we treat it differently from everything else. If you're in a nation that turns a blind eye to hacking (or sponsors it), then you can hack away at targets all day long without any real risk of punishment.
So what's your stateful firewall doing in the meantime? Sitting around and deactivated?
I have two. They're both doing their jobs fine. I also have a DHCP server which isn't running on the same host as either of the firewalls/gateways.
The problem isn't with the stateful firewalls. The problem is getting all the clients to use the correct one. That is bad enough using DHCP and NAT. I don't really see any simple way to accomplish it with the typical router advertising approach to IPv6. You'd have two gateways both offering routes, and I don't want every host on the network just picking whichever one it wants to.
The sooner NAT dies, the better for everyone.
The problem is that it will never die. Therefore, you'll still need all that cruft to work around it.
With NAT you worry about the outside network on your gateway, and the inside network everywhere else. Without NAT you have to worry about the outside network everywhere. Anytime your prefix changes, your internal addressing changes. If you have multiple gateways, then you have multiple sets of internal addresses that are changing.
Getting rid of NAT makes sense in theory. It isn't always as easy in practice, and it gets harder the more you deviate from a bunch of chromebooks browsing facebook, which is a situation where NAT doesn't really cause any problems in the first place.
The fight against NAT is actually, from my point of view, the thing holding people back. Sure the IoT is cool and your firewalling should be in place, etc. but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with NAT because just about every device on the net today is using it, and it doesn't cause enough problems to care about for the most part. However it solves an enormous number of problems, including quite what to do about an IPv4->IPv6 transition where you don't want to have to find and renumber every damn device with a MAC that's on your premises (or that probably don't support IPv6 anyway).
Agree, and I think another likely source of frustration will be when everybody is in a mad rush to start deploying protocols that break with NAT.
A big problem with assigning globally-routable addresses within your network is that anytime your prefix changes, you have to renumber your network. Everybody seems to live in some fantasy-land where ISPs will give everybody static prefixes - it won't happen. First, they'll want to be able to charge more for those. Second, keeping it dynamic lets them renumber their own network anytime it suits their fancy.
I run all my traffic through a VPN and I have two gateways on my LAN as a result. With NAT that is no big deal - the DHCP server just tells everybody which gateway to use and the only system that needs any real care is the VPN gateway, and any systems that need to be exceptions. If I want to use globally-routable addresses I imagine that would get a bit more complex, as now I have to distribute two sets of dynamically changing addresses across my network. If the VPN prefix changes, then most of the LAN needs a new routable address. If the ISP prefix changes then the VPN server and any other exceptions that talk direct to the ISP need new prefixes.
Most likely I'll just stick with link-local addresses and continue to use NAT. After all, one of the points of using a VPN is to not expose all my network internals anyway.
A victory in a US court for Sikhs For Justice will remain a hollow victory because it would be unenforceable outside the jurisdiction of that US court (unless Facebook is willing to be in contempt of an Indian court order - which will be fully enforceable in India).
Oh, a victory in a US court could be quite effective. Suppose a US judge orders Facebook to pay $1M/day as long as the site is down. They can't actually put the site back up since as you point out then India would punish them for it. However, they can provide a steady revenue stream to Sikhs for Justice. Then the judge can get frustrated and keep ratcheting up the fines until they are economically damaging to Facebook. At that point Facebook is basically forced to leave India, since they will pay more in fines than they make from being present in India.
I agree that companies have to obey the law where they do business, but as you point out earlier in your post, there is nothing that forces Facebook to do business in India.
If Facebook pulled out of India then there is no longer a conflict of law - they can unblock the page and of course India could firewall all of Facebook but Facebook itself is completely in the clear legally.
I'm not sure how likely a court is to take action like this, but the US effectively exports its laws all the time. That's why everybody loves the US! :)
There is a tendency in big companies to glorify small jobs.
At work there was a need for somebody to do a fairly administrative task. There was quite a bit of work - probably the better part of a full-time equivalent.
Now, if they had posted a job for $15-20/hr they could have hired somebody exceptionally qualified to do the work, and they would have done the work diligently and been happy to have the job.
Instead they used this as an excuse to hire an advanced degree position for probably $70/hr total cost, and then make it just a part of their duties splitting the work up among a few roles.
Once hired, predictably everybody looked down on the work as demeaning and did anything they could to get involved in more complex projects to have an excuse to not do the work. So, the work was done less-effectively and the original demand that justified the position in the first place was basically left unmet.
The task was something any high-school graduate could do, but it was still vital to the operation of the company. Indeed, it was actually a task fairly central to the mission of the organization.
So, the end result is that the mission was still done poorly, at 4x the cost. All because nobody wants to admit that some of the work done in their organization could be performed by a low-cost employee.
increasing spending on strategic projects from 5 percent to 40 percent
Rarely does this sort of change involve spending more money in absolute terms. Most likely people doing stuff like support were retasked, outsourced, or simply cut.
Most of the stuff in the summary sounds like a good move, but I've seen companies that were fairly short-sighted in making these kinds of moves. At work we've been focusing on "strategic projects" for a long time now in belt-tightening mode and it seems like the biggest result is that every department under the sun has sprouted its own mini IT department that does all the stuff that IT stopped doing, usually less efficiently than it would be done if centralized.
When IT cuts a service that really was necessary, the result usually involves a net loss of money.
They really need to build performance testing into the system. That is, ensure that 10% of all passengers who are screened have something that needs to be detected. There are many ways to accomplish this. Such a change solves two problems at once.
The first problem is the obvious one. How do you know the system is working. With continuous testing, then you know at all times exactly how well it is working. You also have an easy way to evaluate how changes in procedure help/hurt, since you have continuous data collection on performance.
The other problem is more important, but perhaps less obvious. Security screeners are like people on watch duty in the military. They stare out at an empty ocean, and if you do things in the most obvious way then in a typical shift they observe exactly nothing 99% of the time. Or they have lots of false positives, that then cause trouble, and if anything that can tend to result in negative feedback that discourages the reporting of true observations. When you stare at a whole lot of nothing for a long time, your brain tends to zone out, and expecting to find nothing, the brain manages to find that even when there is something to be found.
If 10% of all passengers being screened were controls where something needed to be found, then you have to maintain a constant state of vigil. If for whatever reason that vigil is broken you get immediate feedback, and positive reinforcement for when you pay attention. Sentry duty becomes more like a game, or at least somewhat more engaging for the brain.
There are lots of ways to make it work. If nothing else you can hand random passengers fake weapons and have them stick them in their bags at the start of the line. Or, you could modify the equipment to generate a false positive at random (the metal detector goes off with nothing in it, or the x-ray machine adds a picture of a weapon to the image). Before doing an actual search that would pester the passenger, you first push a button that removes any artifacts from the results, and then the machine registers a successful response and then shows the true image, which then gets re-screened. That would result in fairly minimal delay to passengers, and a much better security environment.
Of course your beta cells don't know about any of this either and they do OK. The do sense stress hormones, so if you're worried, they might pick up on the impending run. Otherwise, they make do with blood glucose levels.
Absolutely true, but I'd be interested in the latency in the new device compared to a pancreas. Existing pumps and continuous monitors have some latency associated with them, which means they'll never do quite as well as an actual pancreas if you're suddenly going to change your rate of glucose rise/fall.
Not this again. The truth is there has been NO ADVANCES in AI since the 1970's. NONE.
And therefore there never will be one?
That's a bit like saying that aircraft will never be invented because there was no progress on the topic between 350AD and 390AD.
I know people really really want to believe that Siri is AI, or a precursor to AI, but it isn't.
I don't consider either Siri or Google to be examples of AI per se. I think that when AI does come along it might end up incorporating some of the concepts that go into them, but it is hard to say at this point since nobody really knows how to build an AI.
Agree somewhat. There are a fair number of human jobs that can probably be automated in the fairly near future as "AI" has been getting better, especially for problems like visual/speech recognition which traditionally was a barrier to automation.
An AI that actually can innovate and is self-aware/etc would be a barrier to eliminating many jobs. At some point I think we'll cross that threshold and we'll see almost every job go away almost overnight (since such an AI could be used to improve itself and rapidly develop specific automation solutions for every job). However, that is of course a major advance and it is really hard to say how soon it will come.
So you are assuming that anyone whose job has been lost to automation is incapable of learning another job. That's insulting to the people you think you are helping.
No, I think that most whose jobs are lost to automation are incapable of learning another job.
I don't get why you consider this insulting. I think that my job will be automated one day, and I'll be incapable of getting a job. That is just reality - it isn't an insult that I'm going to be outsmarted by some super-human AI.
Unless you are fairly advanced in age already, I suspect that within our own lifetimes all people may become unemployable, as there is no function you or I perform which is not capable of being automated,
Your worldview is extremely limited, I fear, and you need to get out more.
Not sure what is "limited" about it. I'd consider a world where nobody has to work a paradise. It is only a problem if you expect people to earn their way through life. I think people have value beyond what they can "earn."
All jobs pay enough to live on?
"Not all jobs..."
You said, "Not all jobs are well-paying, but they pay enough to live on."
You said that not all jobs are well-paying. You also said that all jobs pay enough to live on. Or were you trying to say not all jobs pay enough to live on? I'll admit that english is a bit ambiguous in this statement. I'm asserting that not all jobs pay enough to live on. If you disagree, then I'll cite the walmart example. If you agree with me, then I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with people getting jobs and not getting public assistance.
something like 15% of the Walmart workforce receives food stamps.
What a sad world when Walmart becomes the gold standard in jobs.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me that simply having a job isn't really helpful, if it isn't well-paying. That was why I brought up the statistic.
Walmart is the sort of job that anybody can do, but it is only that way precisely because it is so low-paying. If they had to pay more, they would probably automate more.
You seem to think that I have a low view of "common" people. I've known many people I'd put into that category over the years and I don't have a low view of them at all. I've just observed that they toil constantly to barely make the rent, and many fail to even do that. You only consider that observation insulting because you seem to equate employ-ability with worth.
I think the day will come when nobody is employable. We're not there yet, but there is no reason to think that there is an upper-limit on the ability of AI, and plenty of reason to think that there is an upper-limit on human ability (short of humans modifying themselves, and basically becoming AI themselves). The problems of unemployment that are becoming increasingly worse are just the first signs of this.
What? When did I say anything about punishing anyone? I can only assume that you think that someone who has to go without a cellphone or internet because they don't have a job is being punished somehow.
A cellphone and internet access are common basic necessities these days. Sure, you could line poor people up in honeycombs and stick tubes for food, air, and waste into them and they could probably live somewhat-normal-duration lives at a minimal cost to society. I don't really see the point in that, when it is not particularly expensive to allow them to live at a somewhat higher standard of living.
I'm sorry, but "I don't want to look for a job" is not a disability. Neither is "my job was replaced by a robot, boo hoo, I shouldn't have to learn another job."
Of course not, if it were actually possible for them to learn another well-paying job. I assert that for most this is not the case. Unless you are fairly advanced in age already, I suspect that within our own lifetimes all people may become unemployable, as there is no function you or I perform which is not capable of being automated, and I can say that confidently not knowing what you do for a living. There is no artist, composer, scientist, programmer, or philosopher who has some ability that cannot be performed by a sufficiently advanced machine, since that is really all our brains are.
Not all jobs are well-paying, but they pay enough to live on.
All jobs pay enough to live on? That's a pretty bold assertion, considering that it has been estimated that something like 15% of the Walmart workforce receives food stamps.
but few do it well without some talent for it.
That's a bit nebulous, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you believe talent to be in-born (which I do not) or earned (which I do). Either way, that argument can be applied to every skillful activity.
Certainly the argument can be applied to every skillful activity. My sense is that talent is a combination of predisposition and development. It has been demonstrated that learning skills at an early age can actually result in visually-observable changes in brain appearance (learn the violin at a young age and you can actually develop folds in the brain that look different), so there is obviously a learned component of talent. On the other hand, it is less clear to what degree those benefits are fixed at an early age, and whether some are fixed during embryonic development, or even by genetics.
At the very least, if you're born with severe mental disabilities, you probably won't be writing code anytime during your life.
I can also look back at my own life. There were many subjects where I excelled with ease compared to my classmates. I could walk away with an A on a test without studying at all, where others struggled to get Cs with extensive effort to learn the material. I doubt this was merely a matter of test-taking skills as the same applied to practical application of the material, and certainly there are other subjects where I find myself in the role of having to work hard to earn a mediocre grade.
Then I can look at people I know who have had brain injury. The brain isn't some magical concept - it is a physical machine. If you physically damage it, there are remarkable effects on everything from ability to personality. Somebody who was very intelligent before, and to a great degree after, will find themselves cut off from talents they had until that point. Is it so much of a stretch to think that some brains are born with varying degrees of talent, when we know there is natural variation in every other aspect of the human body?
That doesn't make literacy (computer or other) useless at all.
Re-read my post. You'll quickly discover that I agree with that completely.
I doubt he was intending to imply otherwise. You both agree that teaching kids coding skills is useful, but you disagree in your reasoning.
You likely believe that people should be exposed to a variety of disciplines because they're capable of excelling at any of them, and thus they should have the opportunity to decide what interests them most and pursue it.
He (and I) probably believe that people should be exposed to a variety of disciplines because that will help them to determine what they are capable of excelling at, and because they can probably master them to a degree where they can utilize them even if it isn't their primary focus.
Either way, we probably all agree that having an understanding of programming is important in almost any discipline one wants to work in. You would probably say that this creates an opportunity for everybody. I would tend to say that this will likely impose limits on many people regardless of their level of interest or effort, though in practice for many they'll be able to scrape by. There is no question that my view is more cynical/pessimistic, but I think this is really just a product of outmoded expectations. I have no expectation that a great artist should be forced to get a job working for Google to pay his bills. I have no expectation that that somebody with severe mental disabilities be able to get a job anywhere to pay his bills. I believe that we all should enrich society with whatever contributions we can make, and that society should accept us for who we are, and not what is most pragmatic.
While it may give grammar nazis fits, a slightly non-standard use of commas could eliminate the ambiguity in the original headline:
I'm not convinced that your sentence isn't perfectly grammatical, but I'm not enough of a grammar nazi to diagram it. :)
Of course, and the same is true for me. However, I'm not average, and I suspect you aren't either.
If one of my more-average peers worked just as hard as I do and tried to get my job, it is unlikely that they would be hired. They're just not as capable of doing what I do for a living.
That doesn't make them any less valuable. It just makes them less employable.
What do you mean "Did YOU offer them a well-paying job?". Whatever happened to "why don't THEY (the people in the park) go out and THEY find a well-paying job?" Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Since when is it a company's responsibility to hire everyone in town?
I don't think it is anybody's responsibility to hire them. They should simply be given enough to live on somewhat comfortably, without having to work.
Most simply aren't employable, no matter how hard they try.
The average kid yes, the ones who chose to be druggies no.
The average kid in my high school class could barely grasp algebra. There are still a few good-paying jobs for people like this, but they're rapidly being eliminated, and only the most senior can hold them down. The ones who make a decent living tend to be exceptional in some way. That might be how well they communicate, how nice they look, how athletic they are, etc. However, it seems to me that average kids these days end up working retail for a wage that isn't even survivable without public assistance.
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
Who's responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of the person who has a job opening to personally ask each person on the planet if they want to fill it, or is it the responsibility of the potential employee to look in standard places where such offers are made public?
I bet exactly no employer is driving down to that park and saying "I'm hiring". I bet a lot more employers are putting ads in the newspaper, and a lot more are using the publicly-funded state employment bureau's job listings.
Of course nobody is going to walk up to them and offer them a well-paying job. It is also true that anybody hiring somebody for a well-paying job is unlikely to hire most of the folks you were complaining about.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
That's absolutely correct, because once a person learns to do a job there is absolutely no way that he could ever learn to do a different one, and anyone who would suggest that he do so is just suppressing the proletariat. Once a specific job at one plant is taken over by automation, everyone who ever did that job is now unemployable in any other job.
Most people performing tasks that are replaceable by automation will not be capable of performing any job which is not also replaceable by automation. Of course, some will be, but that minority is unlikely to be unemployed.
You would have a much stronger argument had you said that what prevents someone from knowing is the vast array of medically disabling conditions that allow disability pensions.
Actually, I am asserting that they're disabled, though not in any form that currently is granted a disability pension in most societies. The disabilities vary, but they're mostly mentally disabled, in the sense that their intelligence is not fairly well above-average, which is what is required to obtain a well-paying job. Granted, there are also many well-paying jobs that depend less on intelligence and more on other attributes, but for the most part those attributes are also fairly rare.
Take somebody who is completely paralyzed and unable to move, and also completely mentally retarded and unable to do more than maybe digest food spooned into their mouth. They lie on one end of a continuum. On the other end would be somebody with the intelligence of Steven Hawking and the prowess of an Olympic athlete. Virtually everybody falls somewhere in-between. At all points in time there has been a boundary below which people were simply unemployable. As technology advances, that line moves - people who were perfectly employable 1000 years ago are not employable today, because the jobs they were able to do are automated. For example, somebody who was mentally disabled and unable to even remember their name might still be able to earn a living wage by digging ditches 500 years ago. Today that would be unlikely - there is so little demand for manual labor that employers looking for such work can be more picky about who they hire.
At some point in time automation will get to a point where no human is employable - we'll simply be weaker and dumber than machines.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?
Yes. They may not be rocket scientists, doctors, or lawyers, but thank goodness those aren't the only jobs available. And I'm even more sure that the average kid who just left high school is capable, because I see a lot of average kids holding down jobs in the modern world today.
First, I said "well-paying jobs" and not "jobs." I'm not interested in how many average people can
Would these work better?
Banned Products Billboard Advertising In Russia Hides If It Recognizes Cops.
or
Billboard Advertising of Products Banned In Russia Hides If It Recognizes Cops.
The second seems rather incorrect to me.
It might be easier to just pick a word which is strictly an adjective, such as:
Billboard Advertising Illegal Products in Russia Hides if it Recognizes Cops.
Or, even simpler:
Billboard Advertising Illegal Products Hides if it Recognizes Cops
The problem is that "banned" can be a verb or a participle. "Illegal" is strictly an adjective.
I was never rich and never will be, but every time I made a little more money I paid a lot more tax. Work overtime for extra money when incremental taxes are 40%+?
That is because we're taxing the wrong things. Earned income is not the lion's share of income in the US, and it tends to be the main source of income for people who have limited means.
But, the folks who pay income tax can't afford armies of lobbyists so that is where the taxes fall.
Just make the tax rate something like 0% below $50k/yr, 10% from $50-100k, 20% from $100k-500k, and then have it go up exponentially from there. Somebody making $1M/yr might have a 40% tax, somebody making $10M/yr might have an 80% tax, somebody making $100M/yr might have a 90% tax, somebody making $1B/yr might have a 99% tax, and so on.
Another option is to just tax all money transactions. Anytime money changes hands just charge 0.1% or something like that. For the poor, they'll end up paying an unintended 0.2% tax on the money they make and spend. Something like the financial sector will pay a much higher effective rate, and that is something like a third of the economy.
I walked from Potomac Avenue to the Navy Yard yesterday and came upon an entire community that relies upon government funded housing. They just hang out all day in a small park chatting with one another. They don't look like they're incapable of any sort of work.
Did you offer them a well-paying job? Chances are, neither has anybody else.
The days when you could tell whether somebody was capable of getting a job ended with the development of automation.
Think of the average kid you went to high school with (assuming you went to an average public school as I did). Do you REALLY think they're capable of holding down a job in the modern world?