I see your point about passwords for people who have access that no one else has. If something were to happen (and things do happen) it's important for someone to be able to gain access to certain systems.
My "admin" credentials don't rise to that level and certainly not my sister who is a user like all the other users at her work. It's not as though we are able to apply encryption to our records. We access a frontend for data entry and report generation.
At my job, we have a secure database where each person has their own credentials to get in. As a troubleshooter for my work site, I have an administrative set of credentials that allows me to access everyone's records in case they run into problems that they want me to fix. The system logs changes to the records, so if they change something it tracks to them, and if I change something in their records it tracks to me.
My administrative credentials are not under my control, i.e. I can't set my own password. The people at the next level up can do this, but I cannot.
This seems wrong to me, but when I try and explain this to people they don't see the same issue that I do. Namely, a password is pointless if someone else knows it. Whatever my superiors can do with my login, they can just as well do with theirs. I've known them for a while and have no reason to suspect any malfeasance, but that's not how you design security.
My sister is in a similar situation at her work where the IT department determines everyone's passwords. I was trying to convince her that this was less than ideal, and she just boggled at me. She works in politics and there's a lot of potential for spying from a rival party. If IT sets and can retrieve anyone's password (which they can in this instance), they could easily frame someone else for this kind of espionage by impersonating them. That's not to mention that if passwords are stored someplace on the system in an easily readable format, that's certainly a flaw in the security design.
Maybe I'm alarmed over nothing, but I don't think so.
Don't laugh, 70% of the CIA's budget goes to private contractors. To whom are they accountable? Not you and me. If someone in charge determines that this type of warfare is not "inherently governmental", look for the USAF to find a private company to do the job at 3x the cost of keeping it in house.
One of my friends has a theory that Dick Cheney is just a nihilist who wants to take as many people as he can with him when he dies. It's a pretty harsh thing to say about someone, but my friend was a philosophy major and doesn't assign the word "nihilist" on a whim.
Personally I think he's of the school that says "life's not fair" and then acts to enforce and increase the disparity.
I've had students with ADD who report (later) that martial arts are a great thing for teaching focus and discipline. For many people, focus isn't something you train to do, you just exert the effort and it happens. A feature of ADD is that focus is difficult. It's called "Attention Deficit Disorder" but really it's an excess of attention. Your attention is split so many ways that a lot of activities required by modern life are difficult.
I remember that one with the downed Dominion ship. It may even have been in that same episode that O'Brien refers to "full dress uniform? Fine linens? A different fork for every course? Thanks but no thanks. That's why I stayed an enlisted man."
In another episode of DS9, O'Brien talks about how proud his father is of him. His name for his rank is "Senior Chief Specialist" Miles Edward O'Brien. That sounds like Army to me, based on the word "specialist."
In Lucas' mind, his movies are the only ones that exist. Never mind that Star Wars was The Hidden Fortress. If you listen to his commentary on these recent movies (I've made a huge mistake,) he's including homage to his own earlier movies.
As such, there are only about 10 movies to watch in the entire history of film. So we clearly need more.
I didn't know that and it's interesting. Cringely said that Microsoft's interest in Yahoo! was similar to this. That is, MS wanted an infusion of people and culture that wasn't the same as what they already had. This new PR company isn't going to be working inside Microsoft, but maybe MS is hoping for some kind of positive effects of a new influence.
Somehow, actual change initiated by a new PR company doesn't seem likely to me now that I've typed it out.
The only stuff I know about publicity is from watching that one episode of Arrested Development where they hire a publicist. In addition to getting positive media coverage, she does make some suggestions about things they should do and not do.
The big difference is that oil is a commodity. The other companies you mentioned can gain or lose market share by differentiating their product from everyone else's. They can invent new products, creating new markets for themselves. Also their product doesn't have the scarcity issue that oil does. Once they write it, the marginal cost of reproduction is next to nothing. Oil companies don't produce better oil or more advanced oil or sexier oil. There are very small margins to be had in commodities, and sometimes none at all. The sector that most often has to deal with this price crushing reality is farms. Commodities are so unprofitable for farms that they have to be subsidized.
In Gaming the Vote (by William Poundstone), the author explains a concept called "independence of irrelevant alternatives." He uses an anecdote: a man is ordering dessert at a diner. The waiter tells him they have cherry and apple pie. The man orders apple pie. A minute later, the waiter returns and says, "oh I forgot we also have peach." The man says, "In that case I'll have cherry." The existence of a non-preferred alternative should not cause him to change his preference.
Olympic scoring is vulnerable to this problem. Because the judges see the contestants in succession, each one is scored relative to the ones who came before. In a system like this, it is possible for someone coming in 4th to reorder the top 3 contestants. In this new system, it seems that difficulty is considered independent of the order of contestants, and deductions are also made without regard for that. This is one way to avoid the flaw described in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
If I've understood it right, the current system is a range voting system, replacing a ranking system.
Adolescents often experience a psychological construct where they believe everyone is watching everything they do. People in general, of course, have better things to do than all watch one person. That's not to mention that other adolescents in the crowd have the same notion. It gets very easy to be embarrassed in that case. If one person scrutinizing your behavior actually comes out and criticizes you, surely everyone else must think the same thing.
In Diablo I, the player was going down down down and it got darker as you went. This is part of the game, and as such it made sense to get darker.
In Diablo II, there are only a few zones that have a large number of levels, namely the zones leading to bosses. Much of the rest of the game is outdoors and pretty brightly lit. In the expansion, it's a snowscape which is about as bright as you can get. There's no sense of delving down so it didn't get darker. Even the hell portion of the game was itself a large flat landscape. I guess the three prime evils like to be able to see in front of themselves too.
Depending on what this game is about, it may not make sense for every indoor area to be pitch the fuck black. I agree that it's a more challenging game if you don't see infinitely in front of you, and maybe they'll address it. I hope there's some variety in the environments and how you have to navigate them, as it will make a better game. Fans requiring all the locations to be muted and gloomy are thinking short sighted.
"in danger" and "reconsidered" aren't even the only two options. Even if Nvidia decided to stop working on chipsets themselves, they wouldn't just destroy all the work in progress. They'd sell it or license it or something. The work already done is still an asset.
The poll, which surveyed more than 500 adults by phone in July, found that 69% of respondents support the idea of offshore drilling, while 30% opposed it. In June, 73% were in favor of offshore drilling.
But the poll also found that Americans are divided over whether or not offshore drilling will have an immediate impact on high gas prices.
When asked if increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices in the next year, only 51% of a separate sampling of 500 Americans believed it would, while 49% did not.
Two things: first, as another poster pointed out, fewer people favored the drilling in July than in June. And secondofly, if we assume that sampling is working as intended, half the people who support drilling believe that it will have an immediate effect on prices. That is, some may favor drilling regardless of short term effect, and some may oppose drilling on some other basis. But if we took the 35% from July and explained that drilling wouldn't affect prices in the short term, I wonder how they would respond.
The Democratic Congress has in fact allowed far more expansion of executive power than the Republican Congress did. I don't have an explanation for this. Actually I do. I'd add "cowards" to your description of the Democractic Party. When you hear them talk about why they can't stop this shit, they say they don't have enough of a majority. That is given the lie by the actual voting records, as you kind of pointed out. My only advice is to look to your own party to do the right thing than to count on the opposition to make your own party do the right thing.
I feel as sold out as you by the "Democrat" party but DHS is part of the executive. This president still thinks his aides can ignore congressional subpoenas. Has there been any statement on yesterday's ruling? Or is it just appeal time? The judicial branch is only now starting to wake up to abuses of power.
By rights, the GOP should also oppose rampant expansion of executive power. Instead, it's partisan bloc voting. The story should have both tags or none at all.
I think the neocon agenda was initiated with Project For the New American Century. An inspiring name until you realize they want an American Century for the whole world.
Slashdot Mirror
64 pixels should be enough for anyone.
Too easy, I know.
I thought they had staff dedicated to this, like the CEO.
I see your point about passwords for people who have access that no one else has. If something were to happen (and things do happen) it's important for someone to be able to gain access to certain systems.
My "admin" credentials don't rise to that level and certainly not my sister who is a user like all the other users at her work. It's not as though we are able to apply encryption to our records. We access a frontend for data entry and report generation.
At my job, we have a secure database where each person has their own credentials to get in. As a troubleshooter for my work site, I have an administrative set of credentials that allows me to access everyone's records in case they run into problems that they want me to fix. The system logs changes to the records, so if they change something it tracks to them, and if I change something in their records it tracks to me.
My administrative credentials are not under my control, i.e. I can't set my own password. The people at the next level up can do this, but I cannot.
This seems wrong to me, but when I try and explain this to people they don't see the same issue that I do. Namely, a password is pointless if someone else knows it. Whatever my superiors can do with my login, they can just as well do with theirs. I've known them for a while and have no reason to suspect any malfeasance, but that's not how you design security.
My sister is in a similar situation at her work where the IT department determines everyone's passwords. I was trying to convince her that this was less than ideal, and she just boggled at me. She works in politics and there's a lot of potential for spying from a rival party. If IT sets and can retrieve anyone's password (which they can in this instance), they could easily frame someone else for this kind of espionage by impersonating them. That's not to mention that if passwords are stored someplace on the system in an easily readable format, that's certainly a flaw in the security design.
Maybe I'm alarmed over nothing, but I don't think so.
Don't laugh, 70% of the CIA's budget goes to private contractors. To whom are they accountable? Not you and me. If someone in charge determines that this type of warfare is not "inherently governmental", look for the USAF to find a private company to do the job at 3x the cost of keeping it in house.
Read Spies for Hire by Tim Shorrock.
One of my friends has a theory that Dick Cheney is just a nihilist who wants to take as many people as he can with him when he dies. It's a pretty harsh thing to say about someone, but my friend was a philosophy major and doesn't assign the word "nihilist" on a whim.
Personally I think he's of the school that says "life's not fair" and then acts to enforce and increase the disparity.
I've had students with ADD who report (later) that martial arts are a great thing for teaching focus and discipline. For many people, focus isn't something you train to do, you just exert the effort and it happens. A feature of ADD is that focus is difficult. It's called "Attention Deficit Disorder" but really it's an excess of attention. Your attention is split so many ways that a lot of activities required by modern life are difficult.
I remember that one with the downed Dominion ship. It may even have been in that same episode that O'Brien refers to "full dress uniform? Fine linens? A different fork for every course? Thanks but no thanks. That's why I stayed an enlisted man."
In another episode of DS9, O'Brien talks about how proud his father is of him. His name for his rank is "Senior Chief Specialist" Miles Edward O'Brien. That sounds like Army to me, based on the word "specialist."
In Lucas' mind, his movies are the only ones that exist. Never mind that Star Wars was The Hidden Fortress. If you listen to his commentary on these recent movies (I've made a huge mistake,) he's including homage to his own earlier movies.
As such, there are only about 10 movies to watch in the entire history of film. So we clearly need more.
I didn't know that and it's interesting. Cringely said that Microsoft's interest in Yahoo! was similar to this. That is, MS wanted an infusion of people and culture that wasn't the same as what they already had. This new PR company isn't going to be working inside Microsoft, but maybe MS is hoping for some kind of positive effects of a new influence.
Somehow, actual change initiated by a new PR company doesn't seem likely to me now that I've typed it out.
The only stuff I know about publicity is from watching that one episode of Arrested Development where they hire a publicist. In addition to getting positive media coverage, she does make some suggestions about things they should do and not do.
MS should hire Mitchell Hurwitz :D
The big difference is that oil is a commodity. The other companies you mentioned can gain or lose market share by differentiating their product from everyone else's. They can invent new products, creating new markets for themselves. Also their product doesn't have the scarcity issue that oil does. Once they write it, the marginal cost of reproduction is next to nothing. Oil companies don't produce better oil or more advanced oil or sexier oil. There are very small margins to be had in commodities, and sometimes none at all. The sector that most often has to deal with this price crushing reality is farms. Commodities are so unprofitable for farms that they have to be subsidized.
Well yeah because they're hiring someone else to do it.
In Gaming the Vote (by William Poundstone), the author explains a concept called "independence of irrelevant alternatives." He uses an anecdote: a man is ordering dessert at a diner. The waiter tells him they have cherry and apple pie. The man orders apple pie. A minute later, the waiter returns and says, "oh I forgot we also have peach." The man says, "In that case I'll have cherry." The existence of a non-preferred alternative should not cause him to change his preference.
Olympic scoring is vulnerable to this problem. Because the judges see the contestants in succession, each one is scored relative to the ones who came before. In a system like this, it is possible for someone coming in 4th to reorder the top 3 contestants. In this new system, it seems that difficulty is considered independent of the order of contestants, and deductions are also made without regard for that. This is one way to avoid the flaw described in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
If I've understood it right, the current system is a range voting system, replacing a ranking system.
Adolescents often experience a psychological construct where they believe everyone is watching everything they do. People in general, of course, have better things to do than all watch one person. That's not to mention that other adolescents in the crowd have the same notion. It gets very easy to be embarrassed in that case. If one person scrutinizing your behavior actually comes out and criticizes you, surely everyone else must think the same thing.
Isn't this the definition of ex post facto law? A new law to govern this behavior would criminalize something that wasn't illegal at the time.
We could, of course, write off Lori Drew as the cost of our failure to address this sooner.
First, here's the actual site: http://www.road-to-war.com/
Next, it's down for maintenance, which I guess is temporary but not a good time for an announcement.
This is, though, a better way to promote the game than monthly emails with new information that amount to "no you're still not in the beta."
In Diablo I, the player was going down down down and it got darker as you went. This is part of the game, and as such it made sense to get darker.
In Diablo II, there are only a few zones that have a large number of levels, namely the zones leading to bosses. Much of the rest of the game is outdoors and pretty brightly lit. In the expansion, it's a snowscape which is about as bright as you can get. There's no sense of delving down so it didn't get darker. Even the hell portion of the game was itself a large flat landscape. I guess the three prime evils like to be able to see in front of themselves too.
Depending on what this game is about, it may not make sense for every indoor area to be pitch the fuck black. I agree that it's a more challenging game if you don't see infinitely in front of you, and maybe they'll address it. I hope there's some variety in the environments and how you have to navigate them, as it will make a better game. Fans requiring all the locations to be muted and gloomy are thinking short sighted.
What does this have to do with capitalism? Creativity isn't limited to any particular economic system.
"in danger" and "reconsidered" aren't even the only two options. Even if Nvidia decided to stop working on chipsets themselves, they wouldn't just destroy all the work in progress. They'd sell it or license it or something. The work already done is still an asset.
I use the term because I'm from India. People not from India aren't Indians. Call me old fashioned.
Two things: first, as another poster pointed out, fewer people favored the drilling in July than in June. And secondofly, if we assume that sampling is working as intended, half the people who support drilling believe that it will have an immediate effect on prices. That is, some may favor drilling regardless of short term effect, and some may oppose drilling on some other basis. But if we took the 35% from July and explained that drilling wouldn't affect prices in the short term, I wonder how they would respond.
This doesn't directly address your question, but there's a great deal more to this story: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
The Democratic Congress has in fact allowed far more expansion of executive power than the Republican Congress did. I don't have an explanation for this. Actually I do. I'd add "cowards" to your description of the Democractic Party. When you hear them talk about why they can't stop this shit, they say they don't have enough of a majority. That is given the lie by the actual voting records, as you kind of pointed out. My only advice is to look to your own party to do the right thing than to count on the opposition to make your own party do the right thing.
And join the Strange Bedfellows coalition.
I feel as sold out as you by the "Democrat" party but DHS is part of the executive. This president still thinks his aides can ignore congressional subpoenas. Has there been any statement on yesterday's ruling? Or is it just appeal time? The judicial branch is only now starting to wake up to abuses of power.
By rights, the GOP should also oppose rampant expansion of executive power. Instead, it's partisan bloc voting. The story should have both tags or none at all.
I think the neocon agenda was initiated with Project For the New American Century. An inspiring name until you realize they want an American Century for the whole world.