Or at least his theory about hierarchical cultures and airplane disasters...
I lived in Korea as an English teacher in 2001/2002 and was part of a traveling soccer club...and have traveled extensively elsewhere in Asia.
The idea that the Asia cultural notion of putting respect for a higher class could cause co-pilot's warnings to be delayed or ignored, contributing to the crash, is a sound argument.
For the reasons Gladwell outlines, it is valid. I've seen it personally in many, many everyday situations, from behavior on public transit to my bosses and co-workers at my job:
In Asia, they are **more** willing to do a thing the **wrong way** because the boss said so.
Just accept it...it's not 'racist'...and it **definitely** isn't just Korean...it goes across Asian culture (rooted in Confuscianism) and the behavior ontology can be seen in Microsoft's management (easy example) evidenced in a different context.
The article nitpicks Gladwell's example by bringing up Red Herring examples of places where Gladwell's analogies break apart. Sure, TFA makes a valid point about the ages of the co-pilots. So what. These are not counterpoints to the original notion of a culture of obedience in the face of error causing bad decisions in crisis.
Here's what TFA is missing and Gladwell didn't explain as well as he could have: Korean hierarchical culture is about who is the 'top dog'...the highest on the pecking order in that context.
It is a multifaceted, modern, complex pecking order, one that subverts and yet maintains the status quo. See, Korea and Asia aren't as hierarchical as they used to be, they have heard of punk rock and 'the 60s' and all that...their cultures digest it and adapt the ideas...Korea especially has a strong Egalitarian streak postwar...but they still have that legacy and it is still a factor, as TFA and Gladwell both agree...
Bottom line, in the cockpit, the pilot is the Big Cheese...he's the boss and reports on those below him.
At home, maybe his wife is the boss...maybe in the break room Chiang Min-Ho holds court...but in the cockpit in an emergency they defer to the pilot.
Both TFA and Gladwell choose poor language to describe a commonly understood concept and confusion ensues...
Anyone consider DEFCON just might not want the hassle of an official government presence b/c of the trouble it might stir up with attendees???
Jeez, if any of you dorks ever threw a party, you'd know the big variable is who will show up and what they will do.
Having an **official** presence from these gov't IT types would definitely tax security...just look at the comments on this thread. If I was organizing this, I definitely consider the same, given that it's a...you know...'hacker' convention and all.
It's like making sure two people who just broke up don't both show up to your party...avoids commotion...
The NSA and the like **will still be there** of course! Just not in an 'official' capacity.
If I was a gov't IT guy I'd be going just for the fun of it on my own time.
As of this writing, this comment was moderated 'insightful'...
I know we aren't supposed to comment on moderation but Parent is pure flamebait. The whole concept is a trolling concept...'blame government' is half a point and one way to start a never-ending argument.
I HATE these never ending arguments about straw man aspects or red herrings...I downmod these type of comments when I have mod points and I encourage others to do the same. I know we're supposed to focus on promoting good comments but having this kind of flame at the top of the comments really kills the discussion.
Slashdot needs the casual reader/commenter and they get turned off by seeing this same stuff over and over...
Thing is, these CEbimbOs ruin things for competent women by reinforcing stereotypes. I genuinely feel bad for women in the IT workplace. There are virtually zero role models for the big crop of younger woman techies to follow.
Shut your filthy mouth if you were thinking of that CEO woman at Yahoo!...same with Cheryl Zuckerberg or whatever her name is...they are icy-cold ladder-climbing company-killers. Stuck in the same management style that ruined Microsoft....
That's what I'm wondering. I have read that M$ suffered from a 'feifdom' culture as a result of weird upper management that resulted in neglect. Then the 'feifdom' forms, usually as a result of one or a small group saying, "This is Bullshit, x person is crazy, but we can make *our department* not suck and be a shining example of how to do things right to the industry..." then you have internal anarchy. Like Mad Max. Mad Max combined with Truman Show.
In regards to 'marketing'...ugh...I didn't really expect any better, but seeing this in a formal document still gave me a dead feeling inside
you made two fouls...you made a sentence fragment/hotlink as a 'response' and you babbled incoherently making points that are parenthetical at best...
but you brought up Pynchon and so at least that's a reference point...see, his work is 'literature'...and I don't even really like it...but it is 'literature' in the definition GP was attempting to use
you could insert the works of Pynchon or, IMHO, K.S. Robinson (Mars Trilogy) for Card in that list...or Phillip K. Dick...he's the obvious choice
It is psychotic to put Card in that company. Anyone who knows anything about literature knows this.
Even if 1,000,000 people agree with you, you'd still be wrong. You are definitely entitled to your ignorant opinion, just as I can say that, IMHO, Windows Vista, Linux Gentoo, and Unix are the most important OS's in history and people will only remember them in the future...
These 'future people' you speak of will certainly be able to access information easily about virtually every author ever, including the author of yours and my posts on this site.
My point is, your misunderstanding of what 'people' find to be influential and/or classic literature is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of both 'people' and 'literature'...
'great literature' is like 'art'...it's virtually impossible to define but has a fuzzy meaning that virtually everyone agrees on...
'literature' as you are trying to use it indicated works that subject matter experts and especially **a consensus of other writers** consider definitively influential in some capacity to the art of writing letters for entertainment/edification
No one, and I mean not one serious critic or writer of literature would talk of Card's work in this context.
Yes, YOU have a right to an opinion on literature, even though you have no idea what it is, you just know what **you like** and what you've **heard others like**
So you can still have your opinion...and I can point out how stupid it is
All the computers are essentially virtual slot machines.
Then why can't the police just charge them under *existing* anti-gambling laws?
I don't trust Rick Scott or FL Republicans....seems every law passed in these places must have a secret second purpose that kicks back money/power to conservatives and their allies.
First, I want to point out that you essentially agree with me, given your response.
Your issue is carbon:
continue down the road of claiming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, therefore, harmful to the environment
Assumption alert! I never said if I think carbon is a pollutant. You set up that straw man and awkwardly tried to make a big huffy point ('stop breathing' essentially...)
So you're a troll for sure.
You can attempt to redeem yourself by defining pollution, since we both agree it exists. Say what IS and IS NOT pollution and why. What is the threshold of 'harm' in your mind?
Give a real answer to that and you can maybe untrollface yourself;)
'Climate Change' and 'global warming' are nothing but military/industrial complex trolling the world conversation...
Here's something everyone agrees on, on all sides: Pollution harms the environment.
By definition...it's human action...pollution exists. The notion from this 'Dennis Prager wisest men on the planet' crap is IRRELEVANT to the political discussion. Whether melting caps is natural or not has **no impact** on the Federal Government's legal need to regulate pollution.
That's what arguing about 'climate change' and 'global warming' does for the polluters, gives them a straw man to let them keep **polluting**
Pollution exists and with certainty businesses will (especially in the USA) pollute as much as their profit margins allow for in the end.
Snowden is a PowerPoint spy for China/military industrial complex...though a lawbreaker, he **did not** reveal any substantially new information about the NSA and US surveillance programs...just the 'PRISM' name from a.ppt and details of existing operations...still espionage, especially out counter-intel efforts in China, this guy is no Brad Lee Manning...he broke the law to reveal operational details of things people knew existed in abstract
we all know the government can access our digital communications under certain circumstances...it's part of living in a free society...
any IT professional knows any signal transmitted can be intercepted...just because ambulance-chasing yellow journalists morons are all in a flap doesn't mean a 'meaningful conversation' has started at all...the NSA and Patriot Act will only change through **Congress**
to the point: ALL OF THIS WAS REPORTED IN 2006: yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Read it and weep snowdentrolls....he broke the law on a foolish nerd/troll errand so he could get a book deal/documentary and see himself on CNN
The only productive conversation that should result is about *oversight* and *accountability of contractors* and *due process*...
Snowden is a malignant narcissist or maybe being blackmailed
No I do not think the Obama admin 'planned' these leaks...they released it...mostly in boring reports that only boring news reports on because when a problem gets fixed or info revealed it isn't headline news...if it bleeds it leads...
I really won't continue asking for evidence and being told 'it's right there blind fool'...you're trolling and you can try to somehow present actual evidence of 'bush and obama are the same scum' but policy and history are dead against you
You really need to accept that the world is **NOT BINARY**...Obama may not make every decision how you would want but he's the best option. That's fscking called **LIFE**...everyone has to make comprimises in decisions...even dork/trolls like you and Snowden
Supporting the best option vocally and fully doesn't make you a fucking sell out...that's more binary thinking...
I know it's easy to just embrace your angst and lump all people in power as 'them' but you're just wrong and you know it...
You are taking the cowards way out...
If you expect another response you had better have some evidence and logic to your 'Obama = Bush' claim
we as a civilisation have precisely zero idea how to hire decent staff
It's true. Here's my theory: Non-quantifiable job candidate attributes are devalued or ignored in relation to level of perceived quantified 'risk' and the number of nodes between the hiring person and the person who directly works with the job candidate in the decision/power network of the company (usually the decision/power structure is the 'American business style' hierarchy we all know and love but many businesses today cluster into 'fiefdoms' due to managerial neglect).
So it comes down to 'data driven' HR people who are ignorant of the functional job requriements.
Both are a problem, but in tandem they create a ridiculous feedback loop of gamesmanship for work tasks, best exemplified in the film Office Space, "That just makes you work hard enough not to get fired..." which the system cannot correct for because even if an HR person *tried* to adjust their quantitative measures to find better candidates there is not way for them to check the effectiveness of their changes.
You can see the same dearth of qualitative judgement in journalism, most explicitly TV News. TV News producers are **idiots**...I know, I worked for an Iowa Fox affiliate briefly. News producers *decide* what is news and how to cover it, but tune in you'll see the same senseless decision making as from an HR office similar to Google.
News producers can get fired easily, and therefore barely contextualize themselves as 'deciders'...they usually do what was done previously, either the last week, or the last year or w/e...because ratings are quantitative, and TV ratings and ad revenue are what the **news producer's boss** use to judge the producer's performance.
So at best it's a 'cover your ass' issue....otherwise good office drones have to take the 'safe' hiring option b/c they can't justify another choice quantitatively...and quantitatively is how they keep from **getting fired**
Better numbers is only part of the solution...the end is always a human who must **interpret** data. Even the *best* data is subject to the same fault: User Error
Solution: Get rid of redundant decision makers who bottleneck power in the internal system (fire middle managers) and *empower* your primary decision makers to take managed risk based on a *comprehensive* analysis that includes some kind of operational component (on the job interview)
as the the US kills it's very own citizens with no trial at all over seas in the wrong part of the world not to mention all the journalist we have maimed or murdered while the chopper pilots laugh
evidence?
not even one link...and one link to one incident means nothing...Obama has been cleaning up Bush's mess...mostly by **making it public** what the government has been doing SINCE 9/11....BECAUSE OF THE PATRIOT ACT
I want evidence and logic that takes historical fact into account...current policy and what came before it and who changed it...
let me repeat: identify current policy, identify previous policy, note who changed the policy and allowed it to become public
...other than to be a d!ck / counter spy himself. and now he's harboring with the chinese, hmm?
but you left out one glaring option that would have allowed him to keep his (IMHO fictional/hired) girlfriend and sweet Booze/Allen job and...AND write a bestseller and be on TV news spouting his opinions...
anonymous leak
too late now...his best bet is to prove he was being defrauded and manipulated to do this by criminals/chinese/illuminati...otherwise he should anticipate Federal Prison
why do people think he's going to get waterboarded at a black site like Kalid Shake Mohammed or w/e? There really is no reason to assume the current admin will do the worst of what the *previous* admin did...especially when the current admin has allowed so much to become public and eliminated torture practices...
Plus, the idea of robots with emotions is a stupid idea
yes! in my perfect world people would all know this and agree completely...
You bring up Arthur C Clarke...and an interesting quotation for sure...but you have to admit that the 'sentiment' applies to any machine, as others have pointed out as well.
You have an interesting point so I thought about it and was reminded of Warf's instructions on the Bat'leth and my own instructions when I used to be a snowboarding instructor.
You **definitely** want the machine to become part of your body...an extension of the senses. A feeling in the board causes a reaction just as fast as a flame to skin...I could go on...
It definitely lends itself to spiritual language at some point and lends credence to your ideas...
To me it comes down to what *humans* use emotions for...see where the top of the chain for better or worse in the universe.
Humans have emotions to make quick decisions. Neurologically it's all right there in the anatomy. The Amygdala short circuits from the 'lower' brain straight to the decision maker and back.
You see one human strike another human at a distance of 10 feet...now, you see a thief strike your wife...
Emotions liked to your relationship with your wife cause you to (theoretically) bypass the notion of finding out why one human struck the other or making peace straight to punching the thief in the face.
That's it...extrapolate that out to your daily emotions...
Machines have already been programmed with 'emotions' in a way. Ex: telephone message system designed to automatically go to operator if user types random numbers or says multiple unintelligible responses (yelling)...therefore the telephone message program could be considered to have it's emotions set to respond to 'threats' in a certain way, short circuiting the normal system...
Conclusion: Machines programed to mimic human emotions are still machines.
I *do* think that the droids as depicted in Star Wars are problematic, b/c assuming my application of Clarke's idea is correct, the most productive interaction with the machines would not include insulting it at all. Therefore our 'heros' are asshats...but it's once removed...maybe you could say that's a problem future humans will have to work through...
We have world peace but fight alot about piddly shit and abuse our tools
More like changing the oil in your car in a straight jacket following instructions from a blind person...watch some old ISS footage of spacewalks and other EVA and you'll see the poor Astronaut have to, essentially, report every move they make and get a 'yes/no' from Ground Control....every...move...'remove wrench from toolkit' takes 3 confirmations from ground...
'risk management' to the destructive degree...it's psychotic...death by bureaucracy
I appreciate where you are coming from though...
See, you're more right about this than any of us would want to admit:
It's a way for well-connected A-type personalities to get an ego boost and a cheap thrill ride.
It's that way **precisely because** real manned spaceflight has always been under the boot of the military/industrial/political bureaucracy.
Operational manned spaceflight means **trusting astronauts** and giving them alot of personal discretion....in the relative sense of course....a smart astronaut wants Mission Control to have thought of everything 3x...
But instead, unfortunately, NASA's manned spaceflight has become a weird sort of academic/bureacratic obstacle course which ends in a roller coaster ride...
That's how I see it...astronaut's call it "Waiting your turn"...
I chose not to go that route with my brief military career...so I'll always wonder...however, **MY** dream was to walk on other worlds...see new horizons with my own two eyes...be it asteroid or Mars or moon return...something...
I honestly feel like I would have to suppress alot of regret if I had worked so hard to become an Astronaut then had to 'get in line' with the others for my chance to play with a chemistry set in shiny metal alpine tent...
You're bending every which way possible to give validate your support for Snowden but it is not working...you're being duped
if you don't see it you're cruising for a bruising and will be manipulated like Snowden one day...be it from a co-worker or girlfriend, or...?
You're an easy mark...look at each statement of your last post individually and it is plain you are setting up a narrow definition for correctness then making every assumption that would lead to you being right...
He probably knows the capabilities of his previous employer better than we do.
For IT professionals (logical to assume a/. reader has some IT knowledge) these 'capabilities' are all well know...it's the legal use of them. All data transmitted is interceptable. Are you saying that Booze/Allen has capabilities *beyond* the US government they work for?
National Security is THE trump card in the US right now.
umm...what? I gather this nonsense statement is intended to lend 'significance' or 'weight' to the context you are trying to sell...
I have no doubt that he considered doing this anonymously.
Only if you make several assumptions...based on what we've seen, you could say "I have no doubt he **was aware** he could do this anonymously"...
But that he "considered" it, no possible way for you to guess....He either wanted to be Anonymous or NOT...
Either way, this is not a valid statement b/c it doesn't matter if he considered the better option (anon) or not...the point is he could have and chose not to and it was a **DUMB CHOICE** b/c he can never come to his home country again
His family also works intelligence though. We don't know all of his reasons for coming out publicly but it could be to protect them.
How do you know that...has it been reported? How is **coming out publicly** and revealing their identity protect them???
No way...
Wait...yes...**if he is being blackmailed** then yes, you could view his treason as motivated by protection of his family...
But if that's true then every other point about him and his message and motives you've made are wrong...
It could be Blackmail...
Otherwise you're just as easy of a dupe as Snowden...
Slashdot Mirror
ugh...my post wasn't about whatever flight crashed in SF or any other specific flight...did you read it?
it was titled, "Defense of Gladwell"
it's a nice little post...I talk about Gladwell's book example and TFA's counterpoint to it.
you should read it...note: it does not contain any content relating to the cause of a specific flight crash ;)
Or at least his theory about hierarchical cultures and airplane disasters...
I lived in Korea as an English teacher in 2001/2002 and was part of a traveling soccer club...and have traveled extensively elsewhere in Asia.
The idea that the Asia cultural notion of putting respect for a higher class could cause co-pilot's warnings to be delayed or ignored, contributing to the crash, is a sound argument.
For the reasons Gladwell outlines, it is valid. I've seen it personally in many, many everyday situations, from behavior on public transit to my bosses and co-workers at my job:
Just accept it...it's not 'racist'...and it **definitely** isn't just Korean...it goes across Asian culture (rooted in Confuscianism) and the behavior ontology can be seen in Microsoft's management (easy example) evidenced in a different context.
The article nitpicks Gladwell's example by bringing up Red Herring examples of places where Gladwell's analogies break apart. Sure, TFA makes a valid point about the ages of the co-pilots. So what. These are not counterpoints to the original notion of a culture of obedience in the face of error causing bad decisions in crisis.
Here's what TFA is missing and Gladwell didn't explain as well as he could have: Korean hierarchical culture is about who is the 'top dog'...the highest on the pecking order in that context.
It is a multifaceted, modern, complex pecking order, one that subverts and yet maintains the status quo. See, Korea and Asia aren't as hierarchical as they used to be, they have heard of punk rock and 'the 60s' and all that...their cultures digest it and adapt the ideas...Korea especially has a strong Egalitarian streak postwar...but they still have that legacy and it is still a factor, as TFA and Gladwell both agree...
Bottom line, in the cockpit, the pilot is the Big Cheese...he's the boss and reports on those below him.
At home, maybe his wife is the boss...maybe in the break room Chiang Min-Ho holds court...but in the cockpit in an emergency they defer to the pilot.
Both TFA and Gladwell choose poor language to describe a commonly understood concept and confusion ensues...
Anyone consider DEFCON just might not want the hassle of an official government presence b/c of the trouble it might stir up with attendees???
Jeez, if any of you dorks ever threw a party, you'd know the big variable is who will show up and what they will do.
Having an **official** presence from these gov't IT types would definitely tax security...just look at the comments on this thread. If I was organizing this, I definitely consider the same, given that it's a...you know...'hacker' convention and all.
It's like making sure two people who just broke up don't both show up to your party...avoids commotion...
The NSA and the like **will still be there** of course! Just not in an 'official' capacity.
If I was a gov't IT guy I'd be going just for the fun of it on my own time.
As of this writing, this comment was moderated 'insightful'...
I know we aren't supposed to comment on moderation but Parent is pure flamebait. The whole concept is a trolling concept...'blame government' is half a point and one way to start a never-ending argument.
I HATE these never ending arguments about straw man aspects or red herrings...I downmod these type of comments when I have mod points and I encourage others to do the same. I know we're supposed to focus on promoting good comments but having this kind of flame at the top of the comments really kills the discussion.
Slashdot needs the casual reader/commenter and they get turned off by seeing this same stuff over and over...
Thing is, these CEbimbOs ruin things for competent women by reinforcing stereotypes. I genuinely feel bad for women in the IT workplace. There are virtually zero role models for the big crop of younger woman techies to follow.
Shut your filthy mouth if you were thinking of that CEO woman at Yahoo!...same with Cheryl Zuckerberg or whatever her name is...they are icy-cold ladder-climbing company-killers. Stuck in the same management style that ruined Microsoft....
I hate the 'ribbon'...
Metro and Windows 7 were "Her idea" as well...
Her career represents all that causes otherwise good developers to make total crap and eventually quit the industry in disgust.
She's the Sarah Palin of computing.
What was it like before? How is this different?
That's what I'm wondering. I have read that M$ suffered from a 'feifdom' culture as a result of weird upper management that resulted in neglect. Then the 'feifdom' forms, usually as a result of one or a small group saying, "This is Bullshit, x person is crazy, but we can make *our department* not suck and be a shining example of how to do things right to the industry..." then you have internal anarchy. Like Mad Max. Mad Max combined with Truman Show.
In regards to 'marketing'...ugh...I didn't really expect any better, but seeing this in a formal document still gave me a dead feeling inside
you made two fouls...you made a sentence fragment/hotlink as a 'response' and you babbled incoherently making points that are parenthetical at best...
but you brought up Pynchon and so at least that's a reference point...see, his work is 'literature'...and I don't even really like it...but it is 'literature' in the definition GP was attempting to use
you could insert the works of Pynchon or, IMHO, K.S. Robinson (Mars Trilogy) for Card in that list...or Phillip K. Dick...he's the obvious choice
I had to check for myself to verify they had one, but yeah...ugh the state Lottery...
http://flalottery.com/
for what it's worth they have Monopoly branded lottery tickets
you could remove Card and insert Phillip K. Dick...that would be about right.
It is psychotic to put Card in that company. Anyone who knows anything about literature knows this.
Even if 1,000,000 people agree with you, you'd still be wrong. You are definitely entitled to your ignorant opinion, just as I can say that, IMHO, Windows Vista, Linux Gentoo, and Unix are the most important OS's in history and people will only remember them in the future...
These 'future people' you speak of will certainly be able to access information easily about virtually every author ever, including the author of yours and my posts on this site.
My point is, your misunderstanding of what 'people' find to be influential and/or classic literature is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of both 'people' and 'literature'...
'great literature' is like 'art'...it's virtually impossible to define but has a fuzzy meaning that virtually everyone agrees on...
'literature' as you are trying to use it indicated works that subject matter experts and especially **a consensus of other writers** consider definitively influential in some capacity to the art of writing letters for entertainment/edification
No one, and I mean not one serious critic or writer of literature would talk of Card's work in this context.
Yes, YOU have a right to an opinion on literature, even though you have no idea what it is, you just know what **you like** and what you've **heard others like**
So you can still have your opinion...and I can point out how stupid it is
Then why can't the police just charge them under *existing* anti-gambling laws?
I don't trust Rick Scott or FL Republicans....seems every law passed in these places must have a secret second purpose that kicks back money/power to conservatives and their allies.
Who is benefitting from this 'internet cafe' ban?
First, I want to point out that you essentially agree with me, given your response.
Your issue is carbon:
Assumption alert! I never said if I think carbon is a pollutant. You set up that straw man and awkwardly tried to make a big huffy point ('stop breathing' essentially...)
So you're a troll for sure.
You can attempt to redeem yourself by defining pollution, since we both agree it exists. Say what IS and IS NOT pollution and why. What is the threshold of 'harm' in your mind?
Give a real answer to that and you can maybe untrollface yourself ;)
if it just changes the environment, it's not 'pollution'....
grafting a branch onto a tree "changes" it, but it is vastly different than pouring used motor oil all over the tree...
one is 'change' the other is a *type* of change we have a special word for, for when the "change" is a "change" that harms...pollution
AC trolls...getting modded up is what bugs me most...
'Climate Change' and 'global warming' are nothing but military/industrial complex trolling the world conversation...
Here's something everyone agrees on, on all sides: Pollution harms the environment.
By definition...it's human action...pollution exists. The notion from this 'Dennis Prager wisest men on the planet' crap is IRRELEVANT to the political discussion. Whether melting caps is natural or not has **no impact** on the Federal Government's legal need to regulate pollution.
That's what arguing about 'climate change' and 'global warming' does for the polluters, gives them a straw man to let them keep **polluting**
Pollution exists and with certainty businesses will (especially in the USA) pollute as much as their profit margins allow for in the end.
Snowden is a PowerPoint spy for China/military industrial complex...though a lawbreaker, he **did not** reveal any substantially new information about the NSA and US surveillance programs...just the 'PRISM' name from a .ppt and details of existing operations...still espionage, especially out counter-intel efforts in China, this guy is no Brad Lee Manning...he broke the law to reveal operational details of things people knew existed in abstract
we all know the government can access our digital communications under certain circumstances...it's part of living in a free society...
any IT professional knows any signal transmitted can be intercepted...just because ambulance-chasing yellow journalists morons are all in a flap doesn't mean a 'meaningful conversation' has started at all...the NSA and Patriot Act will only change through **Congress**
to the point: ALL OF THIS WAS REPORTED IN 2006: yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Read it and weep snowdentrolls....he broke the law on a foolish nerd/troll errand so he could get a book deal/documentary and see himself on CNN
The only productive conversation that should result is about *oversight* and *accountability of contractors* and *due process*...
Snowden is a malignant narcissist or maybe being blackmailed
Bush and Obama are vastly different.
No I do not think the Obama admin 'planned' these leaks...they released it...mostly in boring reports that only boring news reports on because when a problem gets fixed or info revealed it isn't headline news...if it bleeds it leads...
I really won't continue asking for evidence and being told 'it's right there blind fool'...you're trolling and you can try to somehow present actual evidence of 'bush and obama are the same scum' but policy and history are dead against you
You really need to accept that the world is **NOT BINARY**...Obama may not make every decision how you would want but he's the best option. That's fscking called **LIFE**...everyone has to make comprimises in decisions...even dork/trolls like you and Snowden
Supporting the best option vocally and fully doesn't make you a fucking sell out...that's more binary thinking...
I know it's easy to just embrace your angst and lump all people in power as 'them' but you're just wrong and you know it...
You are taking the cowards way out...
If you expect another response you had better have some evidence and logic to your 'Obama = Bush' claim
It's true. Here's my theory: Non-quantifiable job candidate attributes are devalued or ignored in relation to level of perceived quantified 'risk' and the number of nodes between the hiring person and the person who directly works with the job candidate in the decision/power network of the company (usually the decision/power structure is the 'American business style' hierarchy we all know and love but many businesses today cluster into 'fiefdoms' due to managerial neglect).
So it comes down to 'data driven' HR people who are ignorant of the functional job requriements.
Both are a problem, but in tandem they create a ridiculous feedback loop of gamesmanship for work tasks, best exemplified in the film Office Space, "That just makes you work hard enough not to get fired..." which the system cannot correct for because even if an HR person *tried* to adjust their quantitative measures to find better candidates there is not way for them to check the effectiveness of their changes.
You can see the same dearth of qualitative judgement in journalism, most explicitly TV News. TV News producers are **idiots**...I know, I worked for an Iowa Fox affiliate briefly. News producers *decide* what is news and how to cover it, but tune in you'll see the same senseless decision making as from an HR office similar to Google.
News producers can get fired easily, and therefore barely contextualize themselves as 'deciders'...they usually do what was done previously, either the last week, or the last year or w/e...because ratings are quantitative, and TV ratings and ad revenue are what the **news producer's boss** use to judge the producer's performance.
So at best it's a 'cover your ass' issue....otherwise good office drones have to take the 'safe' hiring option b/c they can't justify another choice quantitatively...and quantitatively is how they keep from **getting fired**
Better numbers is only part of the solution...the end is always a human who must **interpret** data. Even the *best* data is subject to the same fault: User Error
Solution: Get rid of redundant decision makers who bottleneck power in the internal system (fire middle managers) and *empower* your primary decision makers to take managed risk based on a *comprehensive* analysis that includes some kind of operational component (on the job interview)
evidence?
not even one link...and one link to one incident means nothing...Obama has been cleaning up Bush's mess...mostly by **making it public** what the government has been doing SINCE 9/11....BECAUSE OF THE PATRIOT ACT
I want evidence and logic that takes historical fact into account...current policy and what came before it and who changed it...
let me repeat: identify current policy, identify previous policy, note who changed the policy and allowed it to become public
methinks you are a snowdentroll
strong words!
first off, I thank you for agreeing with my other contentions in my post...good to know you're not a troll
to the point...
what part of what I typed makes me a 'blind fool' and **what is your evidence**?
let's see it
you're right to take issue with this:
but you left out one glaring option that would have allowed him to keep his (IMHO fictional/hired) girlfriend and sweet Booze/Allen job and...AND write a bestseller and be on TV news spouting his opinions...
anonymous leak
too late now...his best bet is to prove he was being defrauded and manipulated to do this by criminals/chinese/illuminati...otherwise he should anticipate Federal Prison
why do people think he's going to get waterboarded at a black site like Kalid Shake Mohammed or w/e? There really is no reason to assume the current admin will do the worst of what the *previous* admin did...especially when the current admin has allowed so much to become public and eliminated torture practices...
There's a certain charm to the simplicity and certainty of this statement:
But then this...
You kind of answered your own counterpoint. 'Plot' and 'character' are drama words...dramatic concepts...
Your comment, "Characters are created to suffer" is technically true, just as is the statement: "Movies are made to be watched"
You wouldn't conclude that all movies or all character suffering is equal, no?
Plot and character matter because it tells us **WHY** the characters suffer and have joy, etc.
That's another thing, suffering is only part of the film...there's joy, hatred, anger, relief (unless your a Danish experimental filmaker)...
You're leaving out alot in your statement, my friend....suffering isn't all that matters in a good story
I totally agree with GP when they said:
yes! in my perfect world people would all know this and agree completely...
You bring up Arthur C Clarke...and an interesting quotation for sure...but you have to admit that the 'sentiment' applies to any machine, as others have pointed out as well.
You have an interesting point so I thought about it and was reminded of Warf's instructions on the Bat'leth and my own instructions when I used to be a snowboarding instructor.
You **definitely** want the machine to become part of your body...an extension of the senses. A feeling in the board causes a reaction just as fast as a flame to skin...I could go on...
It definitely lends itself to spiritual language at some point and lends credence to your ideas...
To me it comes down to what *humans* use emotions for...see where the top of the chain for better or worse in the universe.
Humans have emotions to make quick decisions. Neurologically it's all right there in the anatomy. The Amygdala short circuits from the 'lower' brain straight to the decision maker and back.
You see one human strike another human at a distance of 10 feet...now, you see a thief strike your wife...
Emotions liked to your relationship with your wife cause you to (theoretically) bypass the notion of finding out why one human struck the other or making peace straight to punching the thief in the face.
That's it...extrapolate that out to your daily emotions...
Machines have already been programmed with 'emotions' in a way. Ex: telephone message system designed to automatically go to operator if user types random numbers or says multiple unintelligible responses (yelling)...therefore the telephone message program could be considered to have it's emotions set to respond to 'threats' in a certain way, short circuiting the normal system...
Conclusion: Machines programed to mimic human emotions are still machines.
I *do* think that the droids as depicted in Star Wars are problematic, b/c assuming my application of Clarke's idea is correct, the most productive interaction with the machines would not include insulting it at all. Therefore our 'heros' are asshats...but it's once removed...maybe you could say that's a problem future humans will have to work through...
We have world peace but fight alot about piddly shit and abuse our tools
partially at least...
More like changing the oil in your car in a straight jacket following instructions from a blind person...watch some old ISS footage of spacewalks and other EVA and you'll see the poor Astronaut have to, essentially, report every move they make and get a 'yes/no' from Ground Control....every...move...'remove wrench from toolkit' takes 3 confirmations from ground...
'risk management' to the destructive degree...it's psychotic...death by bureaucracy
I appreciate where you are coming from though...
See, you're more right about this than any of us would want to admit:
It's that way **precisely because** real manned spaceflight has always been under the boot of the military/industrial/political bureaucracy.
Operational manned spaceflight means **trusting astronauts** and giving them alot of personal discretion....in the relative sense of course....a smart astronaut wants Mission Control to have thought of everything 3x...
But instead, unfortunately, NASA's manned spaceflight has become a weird sort of academic/bureacratic obstacle course which ends in a roller coaster ride...
That's how I see it...astronaut's call it "Waiting your turn"...
I chose not to go that route with my brief military career...so I'll always wonder...however, **MY** dream was to walk on other worlds...see new horizons with my own two eyes...be it asteroid or Mars or moon return...something...
I honestly feel like I would have to suppress alot of regret if I had worked so hard to become an Astronaut then had to 'get in line' with the others for my chance to play with a chemistry set in shiny metal alpine tent...
I wanted to **fly** to space damnit!
You're bending every which way possible to give validate your support for Snowden but it is not working...you're being duped
if you don't see it you're cruising for a bruising and will be manipulated like Snowden one day...be it from a co-worker or girlfriend, or...?
You're an easy mark...look at each statement of your last post individually and it is plain you are setting up a narrow definition for correctness then making every assumption that would lead to you being right...
For IT professionals (logical to assume a /. reader has some IT knowledge) these 'capabilities' are all well know...it's the legal use of them. All data transmitted is interceptable. Are you saying that Booze/Allen has capabilities *beyond* the US government they work for?
umm...what? I gather this nonsense statement is intended to lend 'significance' or 'weight' to the context you are trying to sell...
Only if you make several assumptions...based on what we've seen, you could say "I have no doubt he **was aware** he could do this anonymously"...
But that he "considered" it, no possible way for you to guess....He either wanted to be Anonymous or NOT...
Either way, this is not a valid statement b/c it doesn't matter if he considered the better option (anon) or not...the point is he could have and chose not to and it was a **DUMB CHOICE** b/c he can never come to his home country again
How do you know that...has it been reported? How is **coming out publicly** and revealing their identity protect them???
No way...
Wait...yes...**if he is being blackmailed** then yes, you could view his treason as motivated by protection of his family...
But if that's true then every other point about him and his message and motives you've made are wrong...
It could be Blackmail...
Otherwise you're just as easy of a dupe as Snowden...