I'm still not sure what the takeaway from this is, save the fact that in addition to being a senile old coot, racist, anti-semite, and all-around waste of oxygen Scalia is also clueless about technology.
In fact, generally assuming Scalia is wrong about everything will serve you well.
Adjuncts are great for teaching FRESHMEN because freshmen are mostly getting remedial math, remedial english, and remedial other-subjects to try to get them to college level thanks to GOP looting and plundering and systematic damage of the education system.
Tenured profs who actually do research are much better for teaching seniors, Masters level, and PhD level students because the tenured profs actually have to know what the fuck they are talking about and the students at that level need someone who can do more than stand at a lectern and read from a book written by someone else.
Far from it. I argue that we need regulations. It's not a bad thing to evaluate a regulation to see if it's served its purpose and should be removed either, but plenty of the regulations we have removed that were direct responses to Gilded Age abuses have come back to bite us.
Glass-Steagall's slow whittling away and repeal is a great example. Without GS, we got a nice little boom/bust cycle and put ourselves right back to Black Monday (1987) and then Black Tuesday (1929) and now we're stuck trying to claw our way back out of the same sort of problems that created the gap of the 1930s.
History repeated because the "libertarian", "anti-regulation" tantrum wing of the GOP got their way and removed regulations that were actually needed. Deregulate first, think later is a bad policy and only those too dumb to understand history think otherwise.
And you're one of the naive idiots who can't see how this necessarily leads to the "economic efficiencies" of monopolism and vulture capitalism.
To be truly "competitive", a market has to be properly regulated. A "free market", in the sense the libertarians call for (laissez-faire capitalism) leads to the Gilded Age all over again. And those of us who have studied history understand how truly bad in all senses the Gilded Age was and never want to repeat the mistakes that naive, ideologically childish idiots like you would have us repeat.
There are many organizations where it really isn't possible to "work with" security because security policy is implemented by a group of people who don't care what the business needs to get done to make money.
Or where security is trying to do their damn job, while shitwits who don't understand the first thing about security claim they know "what the business needs to get done to make money" while they are really claiming they want their password to be "god" or just plain blank.
In addition, I have never been in an organization where security policies were reviewed to determine if they were still applicable, nor have I been in one where the makers of the rules have asked anybody other than themselves about "what should we do about X?"
Security policies are reviewed all the damn time. The problem is that those who make the decisions don't know the first thing about security. If you have those supposedly "onerous" policies, they were put in place for regulatory reasons most likely (HIPPA, FERPA, etc). And you're damned right, those are NOT negotiable. There's federal law involved.
As an example, we're trying to get a data transfer application that uses a non-standard port to work through our firewall. The current test setup has no data that can even be remotely considered "sensitive" (e.g., test files are "lorem ipsum" or similar).
Ever heard of privilege escalation? Once it is behind the firewall and compromised, it doesn't matter what is "on the test setup", unless your "test setup" is itself entirely separated from the rest of the network (which I highly, highly doubt). Your test setup's ability to be compromised is a problem and not just a "little" problem.
The correct way to test would have been to just open the port with a restriction on the outside IP address, and then we could just use the app with default config (no security, etc.)
Great, until Jody the CFO's secretary opens the "Yay Free Kittens Screensaver App" email from her retarded brother in law and now HER machine is the infection vector for your test setup.
But, because security has a veto on everything,
Want to know why? Because it's not security's job to hold the hands of whiny-ass little bitches like you. It's to keep the company's patents, IP, sensitive records, and other shit that can get you fined by the Feds or put out of business safe. Whiny-ass security incompetent bitches like you are the enemy within and security's been ordered to protect the network FROM you.
Allow me to counterexample from real life to your aptly crafted strawman bullshit.
I worked part-time a few years back as IT (the lone guy) for a construction company. Not full time because they weren't willing to hire anyone for full-time, just "on call" hourly rates and a few hours of "maintenance work" each week. They kept the main company server, with all the technical drawings and blueprints and scanned contracts and everything else, on a rolly cart in an open closet area that had a back-access door with a broken lock. The server itself was 8 years old, constantly needed "cleaning for space" for all the documents they were dropping onto its poor, overworked, non-RAIDed, non-backed-up hard drive. This server kept both Active Directory and file storage on the same box. Recommendation to replace the server, preferably including a reasonable mirrored RAID in case of failure? "Oh it works fine just keep it going."
The lack of backup was because their CEO had bought a tape-drive system that maxed out at 60 GB and their documents had exceeded that years ago, and daily maintenance on it was done by "the secretary" until they downsized her and then by a guy who was the laziest and most computer-illiterate of their employees who didn't even show in the office half the time. Recommendation to replace it, with detailed info on why it was inadequate, was "It was perfectly good when I bought it just make it work."
All of their passwords were their username plus the number 1. When this was brought up as a security problem, the CEO's exact response was "I want to know all their passwords at all times in case I need to see their documents" (which he already had access to on the server anyways) and "plus I don't want to have to change my password and I don't see why any of them do either, nobody is going to bother guessing into our systems."
Right before I left, he bought Carbonite Home Edition and installed it on their server thinking it would be good enough because Rush Limbaugh had endorsed it. His password was his wife's name, all lowercase. Did I mention her name is 3 letters long?
I don't know what happened after that. They hired his nephew, who "went to college and knew all about that IT stuff" (warning sign: nephew had a burger-flippers degree from art college) to "train as a site supervisor and do the IT stuff on the side" and told me they didn't need an external guy any more. In many ways, I'm glad not to be bothered by them these days. I pity whoever had to clean up the nephew's mess.
They're CEOs which means they are Fox-addled GOP types. Quantify it in Obamas and all of a sudden they'll spend everything in the world to get rid of it.
- Because we're coming to you right now to get authorization to spend the money required to fix it.
"Rarglkebargle that's too expensive, find a free solution instead. Now where's the intern for my morning blowjob?"
- There is no free solution. It takes time, hours, and a certain amount of training for the staff to get them to understand and help them comply with the security policies.
"Rargle I'll just find someone else then. Fuck you, you're fired. Time for my powerlunch with the other cocaine-addled executives! Hey, I just saved the company your salary! I think I'll award myself some stock options for my brilliance and frugality!"
This, this, a thousand times this. Upper management are always deliberately clueless about security, unless the company is in the business of security.
Actually having security means:
- Management has to bother complying with it.
- Management has to NOT constantly carve out exceptions to it ("I'm the CEO, I'm too important to have to remember my own goddamn password or take 5 seconds entering it into a computer in the morning! Now where's my intern to deliver my coffee and morning blowjob!")
- Management has to spend the money on the maintenance and monitoring of it.
- Management, who have the purchasing / decisionmaking power, have to step away from getting blowjobs from pretty interns long enough to actually look at the competing products/options and make a decision.
- Upper Management will always privilege Middle Management over those whose job it is to deal with security. See point 2 about exceptions: middle management complains "security makes it impossible to get our work done" and the response from Upper Management is never to have the staff spend some time training and understanding the security and why it's there and how to work WITH it, it's "fuck you security why are you getting in the way of business? Shit, I'm taking time off from my two-blowjob lunch to deal with this!"
And just TRY to talk to them about two-factor identification (via cellphones or a swipe-card or something). You will get nowhere because the brainless, Peter Principle, Fail-Upwards recipients of CEO/CTO/CFO jobs will say it's "too much work" for them to comply with.
I don't really care what that shitwitted liar Jimbulb says, or for that matter what lying assholes like you say. "waah we will fix it", I gave up editing in 2008 and I occasionally check it when a result comes up in google search, you assholes ran off people left and right back then and you're still doing it today.
You have your "wikiproject conservatism" acting as a sockpuppet farm coordinating with the Heritage Foundation, and you shitwits don't see the conflict of interest problem. You have a system designed to never, ever give any editor a fair hearing once they are accused of being a "sockpuppet" and where reporting misbehavior by others is as likely to just get their pet admin coming over to block/ban you instead outside of policy, with none of the corrupt fools who do "block review" ever coming back with any answer other than "obvious sockpuppet, ban" or "fuck you you didn't genuflect deep enough and suck my cock fool."
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” - Isaac Asimov
Wikipediocracy:1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.
Compare to Jimbulb Wales' response regarding expert certification of sections on articles on science and medicine:
"There's a notion that the way to get the very highest quality information is to have an expert certify it. But there's actually little evidence that this is true. There is far more evidence that the best way to get to high quality information is to have a thoughtful, open, public dialog and discussion and debate. To ask anyone with a concern to come forward and voice it reasonably. And to respond quickly and openly to errors."
So what we get with Shittypedia is what we've always gotten with shittypedia: lack of anything more than superficial "well it wer in the new york times durr" level research, people who engage in edit warring to "own" the articles, and the admins playing to push their personal POV or help their personal friends. Articles remain much, much worse because of the threads of anti-intellectualism running through the wikipedia culture. It's the "if it isn't on the internet it isn't worthy as a reference" crowd, and the "TL;DR" crowd.
And of course Jimbulb will never answer the other problem inherent to Wikipedia, which makes the anti-intellectual problem even worse:
3. Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.
4. Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to transgress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.
Ask yourself: why did Jimbulb hire "Essjay", KNOWING that the kid had lied and misrepresented himself as a topic area expert (claiming to have a doctorate and b
Ask yourself why Phyllis Schlafly's sons, under the username of "Schlafly" and IP sockpuppets, are allowed to take a [[WP:OWN]] attitude towards their mother's article with help of a couple of friendly admins despite the obvious nature of conflict-of-interest and the widespread media coverage of her vile, racist and bigoted statements.
Yawn. I see the wikitrolls are farming modpoints again. Marketing edits aren't something I do. POV edits aren't something I do. In fact, I gave up on bothering correcting anything on shittypedia ages ago. And like me, they've run off user after user after user who tried to improve and contribute with their petty behavior and the corrupt, tin-pot dictator attitude of the incestuous clique of admins running the place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still not sure what the takeaway from this is, save the fact that in addition to being a senile old coot, racist, anti-semite, and all-around waste of oxygen Scalia is also clueless about technology.
In fact, generally assuming Scalia is wrong about everything will serve you well.
Adjuncts are great for teaching FRESHMEN because freshmen are mostly getting remedial math, remedial english, and remedial other-subjects to try to get them to college level thanks to GOP looting and plundering and systematic damage of the education system.
Tenured profs who actually do research are much better for teaching seniors, Masters level, and PhD level students because the tenured profs actually have to know what the fuck they are talking about and the students at that level need someone who can do more than stand at a lectern and read from a book written by someone else.
There's no point sugarcoating it when someone is just a moron like you.
Far from it. I argue that we need regulations. It's not a bad thing to evaluate a regulation to see if it's served its purpose and should be removed either, but plenty of the regulations we have removed that were direct responses to Gilded Age abuses have come back to bite us.
Glass-Steagall's slow whittling away and repeal is a great example. Without GS, we got a nice little boom/bust cycle and put ourselves right back to Black Monday (1987) and then Black Tuesday (1929) and now we're stuck trying to claw our way back out of the same sort of problems that created the gap of the 1930s.
History repeated because the "libertarian", "anti-regulation" tantrum wing of the GOP got their way and removed regulations that were actually needed. Deregulate first, think later is a bad policy and only those too dumb to understand history think otherwise.
"Free markets as a tool for economic efficiency"
And you're one of the naive idiots who can't see how this necessarily leads to the "economic efficiencies" of monopolism and vulture capitalism.
To be truly "competitive", a market has to be properly regulated. A "free market", in the sense the libertarians call for (laissez-faire capitalism) leads to the Gilded Age all over again. And those of us who have studied history understand how truly bad in all senses the Gilded Age was and never want to repeat the mistakes that naive, ideologically childish idiots like you would have us repeat.
There are two kinds of Libertarians.
Idiots who are too naive to understand that libertarianism leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism, and
Monopolist Vulture Capitalists.
There are many organizations where it really isn't possible to "work with" security because security policy is implemented by a group of people who don't care what the business needs to get done to make money.
Or where security is trying to do their damn job, while shitwits who don't understand the first thing about security claim they know "what the business needs to get done to make money" while they are really claiming they want their password to be "god" or just plain blank.
In addition, I have never been in an organization where security policies were reviewed to determine if they were still applicable, nor have I been in one where the makers of the rules have asked anybody other than themselves about "what should we do about X?"
Security policies are reviewed all the damn time. The problem is that those who make the decisions don't know the first thing about security. If you have those supposedly "onerous" policies, they were put in place for regulatory reasons most likely (HIPPA, FERPA, etc). And you're damned right, those are NOT negotiable. There's federal law involved.
As an example, we're trying to get a data transfer application that uses a non-standard port to work through our firewall. The current test setup has no data that can even be remotely considered "sensitive" (e.g., test files are "lorem ipsum" or similar).
Ever heard of privilege escalation? Once it is behind the firewall and compromised, it doesn't matter what is "on the test setup", unless your "test setup" is itself entirely separated from the rest of the network (which I highly, highly doubt). Your test setup's ability to be compromised is a problem and not just a "little" problem.
The correct way to test would have been to just open the port with a restriction on the outside IP address, and then we could just use the app with default config (no security, etc.)
Great, until Jody the CFO's secretary opens the "Yay Free Kittens Screensaver App" email from her retarded brother in law and now HER machine is the infection vector for your test setup.
But, because security has a veto on everything,
Want to know why? Because it's not security's job to hold the hands of whiny-ass little bitches like you. It's to keep the company's patents, IP, sensitive records, and other shit that can get you fined by the Feds or put out of business safe. Whiny-ass security incompetent bitches like you are the enemy within and security's been ordered to protect the network FROM you.
Allow me to counterexample from real life to your aptly crafted strawman bullshit.
I worked part-time a few years back as IT (the lone guy) for a construction company. Not full time because they weren't willing to hire anyone for full-time, just "on call" hourly rates and a few hours of "maintenance work" each week. They kept the main company server, with all the technical drawings and blueprints and scanned contracts and everything else, on a rolly cart in an open closet area that had a back-access door with a broken lock. The server itself was 8 years old, constantly needed "cleaning for space" for all the documents they were dropping onto its poor, overworked, non-RAIDed, non-backed-up hard drive. This server kept both Active Directory and file storage on the same box. Recommendation to replace the server, preferably including a reasonable mirrored RAID in case of failure? "Oh it works fine just keep it going."
The lack of backup was because their CEO had bought a tape-drive system that maxed out at 60 GB and their documents had exceeded that years ago, and daily maintenance on it was done by "the secretary" until they downsized her and then by a guy who was the laziest and most computer-illiterate of their employees who didn't even show in the office half the time. Recommendation to replace it, with detailed info on why it was inadequate, was "It was perfectly good when I bought it just make it work."
All of their passwords were their username plus the number 1. When this was brought up as a security problem, the CEO's exact response was "I want to know all their passwords at all times in case I need to see their documents" (which he already had access to on the server anyways) and "plus I don't want to have to change my password and I don't see why any of them do either, nobody is going to bother guessing into our systems."
Right before I left, he bought Carbonite Home Edition and installed it on their server thinking it would be good enough because Rush Limbaugh had endorsed it. His password was his wife's name, all lowercase. Did I mention her name is 3 letters long?
I don't know what happened after that. They hired his nephew, who "went to college and knew all about that IT stuff" (warning sign: nephew had a burger-flippers degree from art college) to "train as a site supervisor and do the IT stuff on the side" and told me they didn't need an external guy any more. In many ways, I'm glad not to be bothered by them these days. I pity whoever had to clean up the nephew's mess.
Wouldn't you be too, if those in charge were also the problem?
They're CEOs which means they are Fox-addled GOP types. Quantify it in Obamas and all of a sudden they'll spend everything in the world to get rid of it.
"Why haven't you fixed it yet?"
- Because we're coming to you right now to get authorization to spend the money required to fix it.
"Rarglkebargle that's too expensive, find a free solution instead. Now where's the intern for my morning blowjob?"
- There is no free solution. It takes time, hours, and a certain amount of training for the staff to get them to understand and help them comply with the security policies.
"Rargle I'll just find someone else then. Fuck you, you're fired. Time for my powerlunch with the other cocaine-addled executives! Hey, I just saved the company your salary! I think I'll award myself some stock options for my brilliance and frugality!"
This, this, a thousand times this. Upper management are always deliberately clueless about security, unless the company is in the business of security.
Actually having security means:
- Management has to bother complying with it.
- Management has to NOT constantly carve out exceptions to it ("I'm the CEO, I'm too important to have to remember my own goddamn password or take 5 seconds entering it into a computer in the morning! Now where's my intern to deliver my coffee and morning blowjob!")
- Management has to spend the money on the maintenance and monitoring of it.
- Management, who have the purchasing / decisionmaking power, have to step away from getting blowjobs from pretty interns long enough to actually look at the competing products/options and make a decision.
- Upper Management will always privilege Middle Management over those whose job it is to deal with security. See point 2 about exceptions: middle management complains "security makes it impossible to get our work done" and the response from Upper Management is never to have the staff spend some time training and understanding the security and why it's there and how to work WITH it, it's "fuck you security why are you getting in the way of business? Shit, I'm taking time off from my two-blowjob lunch to deal with this!"
And just TRY to talk to them about two-factor identification (via cellphones or a swipe-card or something). You will get nowhere because the brainless, Peter Principle, Fail-Upwards recipients of CEO/CTO/CFO jobs will say it's "too much work" for them to comply with.
History's right there, shit for brains.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I present to you Anonymous Coward, a stellar example of your average wikipedian.
And yet melikamp, inbred retard extraordinaire, continues to just insist that nothing is wrong at corruptopedia...
except he did and you are a lying sack of shit...
You fuckers keep trying to advertise on slashdot, we'll keep telling others what a shitfest you inbred fucking retards really made.
That is because most of the article is her sons quoting her writings against anyone who disagrees with her/them.
Anonymous Coward = no clue. Probably a shittypedia admin sockpuppet.
I don't really care what that shitwitted liar Jimbulb says, or for that matter what lying assholes like you say. "waah we will fix it", I gave up editing in 2008 and I occasionally check it when a result comes up in google search, you assholes ran off people left and right back then and you're still doing it today.
Here's an idea, you go back and look at the shit that was done on wikipedia in 2007: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
Now, look at what happens on wikipedia today.
Same.
Exact.
Shit.
You have your "wikiproject conservatism" acting as a sockpuppet farm coordinating with the Heritage Foundation, and you shitwits don't see the conflict of interest problem. You have a system designed to never, ever give any editor a fair hearing once they are accused of being a "sockpuppet" and where reporting misbehavior by others is as likely to just get their pet admin coming over to block/ban you instead outside of policy, with none of the corrupt fools who do "block review" ever coming back with any answer other than "obvious sockpuppet, ban" or "fuck you you didn't genuflect deep enough and suck my cock fool."
Someone tried to show what was going on with Phyllis Schafly article, and your friendly neighborhood gestapo deleted it from discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phyllis_Schlafly&action=history
Here's one blatant rule violation that somehow continues to remain despite being a sockpuppet farm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism
Note that they removed comments and banned someone who asked a direct question about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=565769752&oldid=565769643
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” - Isaac Asimov
Wikipediocracy:1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.
Compare to Jimbulb Wales' response regarding expert certification of sections on articles on science and medicine:
"There's a notion that the way to get the very highest quality information is to have an expert certify it. But there's actually little evidence that this is true. There is far more evidence that the best way to get to high quality information is to have a thoughtful, open, public dialog and discussion and debate. To ask anyone with a concern to come forward and voice it reasonably. And to respond quickly and openly to errors."
So what we get with Shittypedia is what we've always gotten with shittypedia: lack of anything more than superficial "well it wer in the new york times durr" level research, people who engage in edit warring to "own" the articles, and the admins playing to push their personal POV or help their personal friends. Articles remain much, much worse because of the threads of anti-intellectualism running through the wikipedia culture. It's the "if it isn't on the internet it isn't worthy as a reference" crowd, and the "TL;DR" crowd.
And of course Jimbulb will never answer the other problem inherent to Wikipedia, which makes the anti-intellectual problem even worse:
3. Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.
4. Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to transgress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.
Ask yourself: why did Jimbulb hire "Essjay", KNOWING that the kid had lied and misrepresented himself as a topic area expert (claiming to have a doctorate and b
Ask yourself why Phyllis Schlafly's sons, under the username of "Schlafly" and IP sockpuppets, are allowed to take a [[WP:OWN]] attitude towards their mother's article with help of a couple of friendly admins despite the obvious nature of conflict-of-interest and the widespread media coverage of her vile, racist and bigoted statements.
That's just one case that came up recently.
Yawn. I see the wikitrolls are farming modpoints again. Marketing edits aren't something I do. POV edits aren't something I do. In fact, I gave up on bothering correcting anything on shittypedia ages ago. And like me, they've run off user after user after user who tried to improve and contribute with their petty behavior and the corrupt, tin-pot dictator attitude of the incestuous clique of admins running the place.