The same talk -- or at least a very similar one, by the same people -- is scheduled to be given at Defcon. Anyone know the status of that? I doubt Defcon is very susceptible to outside pressure, but since the speaker does business in Taiwan he may be reluctant to defy them.
I informally studied the habits of websurfers at my websites with Google Analytics. I found that for almost every page, the most clicked link was whatever I put at the top left.
My hypothesis was that our eyes were just drawn to any graphic at the top left, no matter what it was, and so we'd click on it.
Alternate hypothesis: all those people were trying to click the back button, but missed.
Here is the secret to advancing in virtually any endeavor you pursue, with the possible exception of politics: always take the blame, never accept the credit. If something goes wrong and you had the slightest smidgen of responsibility for it, step up and say you messed up. Don't mention anyone else's culpability. Bring up solutions for how to fix it. But if something goes well, credit the whole team, even if you did 99% of the work. When describing a success, get used to using the word "we." Believe me, people will figure out how much you were actually involved in both successes and failures.
I'm sorry, but that's just flat out incorrect. And worse, it's counterproductive.
Do our regulatory structures need serious reform? Are there areas we are extremely ineffective at regulating? Do companies often find ways to wiggle around stringent regulations? Have politicians gutted good regulations for ideological or fund-raising reasons? Yes yes yes and yes. But to argue that there is "no such thing" as government regulation anymore is to deny evidence all around us. Look at our environment, specifically air and drinking water quality. Look at workplace safety, medical procedures and drugs, automobiles, construction, fishery management, etc etc etc. Now compare them to countries that really don't have any enforced regulations or periods in history where the US didn't; the difference is profound. If you want to see what "no regulations" looks like, go live in Africa or southeast Asia for a while. Then come back and we'll talk.
To say that regulation is dead is to just give up on the idea that we can improve our regulatory systems. It's the same cynical bullshit we see all the time on slashdot. If there's one reason we don't have perfect regulation, it's that people sat around moaning about how it's impossible.
I'll tell you what doesn't go down well in America: lack of reading comprehension. Israel is not "exempted" -- they are a nuclear state. Iraq is not exempted either, as, having no nuclear weapons, they don't need an exemption. The "exemptions" you are worried about are for non-nuclear states that are considered (by the US) to be in non-compliance with NPT requirements. You're free to disagree with the policy, but at this point it doesn't seem as if you have any idea what you're disagreeing with.
Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental.
No, it's sugary AND fatty foods that the rats were being fed. The summary ignores the sugar, but you're not being any better by ignoring the fat. When the rats get addicted to plain bread or just piles of granulated sugar, then we can talk about your theory.
Yar, it were the Year of Our Lord twenty ought seven, and me shipmates and I did embarke on a trip of weighty providence. Our employer, having determined a need for many tonnes of fine whale oil, dispatched our doughty crew to 100 leagues off the shores of Greenland, there to hunt the mighty Leviathan from his home in murky depths. As be my wont, I packed my usual accoutrement for such a journey: a flask of Kentucky bourbon, a two-flue iron harpoon, and me trusty iPhone.
But lo, did we search from dawn to dusk for many days, sighting neither tail nor spout. We were discouraged, yes, but we salty dogs of the ocean kept our spirits high with rousing sea shanties, strong grog, and the freshest games direct from the app store. And then one night, as I whiled away my pre-dawn watch playing Galcon, a true sea monster of terrible size and power breached up before our bow. "Ahoy, mateys!" I cried, but hardly had the words left my mouth when the creature did smite our whaler with his mighty tail. Not a few sailors did he launch into the sea that day with his blow, and also me unlucky iPhone, which slipp'd me hands and tumbled into the gray and churning ocean. Old Nob, satisfied with his destruction, followed it down before we could get hook or shot on him.
And yet, that is not the end of this tale! Indeed, it were not a fortnight hence when we brought in our first catch of the journey. A small fellow, yes, but rich in blubber. As the boys flensed this beast for his oil, one suddenly raised a cry: "Hark! An iPhone!" And there it were, a deep as Jonah in the belly of this whale; me trusty old iPhone, good a new. Immediately I turned her on, and by the Good Lord did not me contacts, me apps, and all me videos of dancing cats came back at once. It were a miracle!
The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed. At this point, I doubt that it's true.
Seriously slashdot, you're not even trying. Although, I have to say it was somewhat irresponsible of Schneier, who in general I have enormous respect for, to write an essay predicated on an unconfirmed rumor.
I'm a bit confused. You prefer movies that introduce elements at random and then never incorporate them into the plot? Red Herring: The Film? As I think Ensign Chekhov said, if you put a giant freakin' pterodactyl in the first act, it absolutely must swoop down on a futuristic helicopter in the third.
Of course, the story was still silly. But not because it followed basic plot structures that have been in place since Aristotle.
If you live in the United States (or several other countries), you can probably get "naked" DSL without phone service. That's not to deny that there are good reasons to keep your land line, but FYI.
I could, for example, add "l0pht industries" to my list of trustees, or "Bruce Schneider"... Or even "Rob Malda", and those people would become part of the trust network that my friends would then rely on.
Much research has found that drivers perceive themselves as being better than average. Evans (1991, p. 322) cites Svenson (1981) who had a group of subjects in two countries rank their own safety and driving skill relative to others in the group. Seventy-six percent of the drivers considered themselves as safer than the driver with median safety, and 65% of the drivers considered themselves more skilful than the driver with median skill.
Each major department receives somewhere in the range of $50 billion.
I don't know what this means. It's certainly not literally true, since many departments receive considerably more or less.
The site is quoting only the IT expenditures, which range from $0.3 billion to $3 billion.
You must have an interesting definition of IT if it includes the following:
Top 5 Products or Services Sold
Aircraft, Fixed Wing $10,458,937,186
General Health Care Services $5,494,273,332
Aircraft, Rotary Wing $5,267,130,237
Liquid Propellants and Fuels, Petroleum Base $5,051,723,867
Trucks and Truck Tractors, Wheeled $4,120,425,697
Why leave off California? Anyway, I think a more valid comparison would be total dollar spent (see here -- the ranking is pretty much the same) rather than just the largest projects this year. Also, what you really should be doing is looking at net Federal expenditures per state, i.e. the difference between the Federal taxes paid and the Federal grants received. That would tell you whether Minnesota is actually subsidizing New York. The site in question doesn't cover that issue, but here's a pdf from The Tax Foundation that does. Look over the data yourself, but it looks to me like New York is subsidizing everyone else.
The summary is misleading. As best I can figure out, the site tracks ALL government spending, not merely IT. It's a little confusing because they provide a special tool just for IT investments -- the "IT Dashboard" -- which gives you some additional reports. But information about all (non-classified) spending is included on the main site. If you're interested in the DoD, look here.
1) China and Russia are laughing at us. This act will artificially drive up the price of cheap-carbon based fuel in the US, reducing US demand. Reduced US demand will lower the global price, making oil and coal MORE attractive options for the rest of the world. Their increased use will more than offset any possible reductions we could do, with this bill or any other.
Russia, which garners a large percentage of its GDP from oil revenue and has been hurt badly since the price of oil dropped, is certainly not "laughing" at any proposal that will reduce the price of oil. China isn't laughing either, as it's been hurt already by the effects of global warming: see crop loss, desertification aroung Beijing. They're between a rock and a hard place, since their social stability depends on rapidly growing GDP. But eventually they will be forced to deal with the issue. As for your claim that any US reductions will be "more than offset" by increases overseas, well: [citation needed] as they say.
2) Folks like you are willing to spend billions of dollars and eviscerate our economy on the trillion dollar scale in a futile and arrogant attempt to turn back the clock. None from your side has ever talked about how we would deal with increased global temperatures, how we might mitigate any rising sea levels, or what the potential upsides to global warming are.
Really? No one "on our side" has discussed this at all? That's a) wrong, and b) irrelevant to this discussion.
3) The climate is always changing, even before we started emitting massive amounts of carbon or anything else. Go look up climate history and see that the best reconstructed information we have, in recorded human history and prior, shows the climate has been significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is now.
Yes, but it didn't generally change this drastically in the space of several decades. Cars slow down all the time; it only hurts when the slow down really fucking fast. Get the idea?
I won't even address the conspiracy theories. That's right, the governments of a large portion of the world, the media, the scientific establishment, etc. are all in cahoots to grab power via cap and trade. It's funny though: I really don't think you favor dumping nasty chemicals into rivers. But folks like you (to use your construction) used the same arguments you're using now to attack regulations against that sort of thing. Because there will always be people who don't understand that, even if regulatory costs are high, so are the costs of doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The same talk -- or at least a very similar one, by the same people -- is scheduled to be given at Defcon. Anyone know the status of that? I doubt Defcon is very susceptible to outside pressure, but since the speaker does business in Taiwan he may be reluctant to defy them.
I informally studied the habits of websurfers at my websites with Google Analytics. I found that for almost every page, the most clicked link was whatever I put at the top left.
My hypothesis was that our eyes were just drawn to any graphic at the top left, no matter what it was, and so we'd click on it.
Alternate hypothesis: all those people were trying to click the back button, but missed.
And see how he really felt about James Bond.
Here is the secret to advancing in virtually any endeavor you pursue, with the possible exception of politics: always take the blame, never accept the credit. If something goes wrong and you had the slightest smidgen of responsibility for it, step up and say you messed up. Don't mention anyone else's culpability. Bring up solutions for how to fix it. But if something goes well, credit the whole team, even if you did 99% of the work. When describing a success, get used to using the word "we." Believe me, people will figure out how much you were actually involved in both successes and failures.
I'm sorry, but that's just flat out incorrect. And worse, it's counterproductive.
Do our regulatory structures need serious reform? Are there areas we are extremely ineffective at regulating? Do companies often find ways to wiggle around stringent regulations? Have politicians gutted good regulations for ideological or fund-raising reasons? Yes yes yes and yes. But to argue that there is "no such thing" as government regulation anymore is to deny evidence all around us. Look at our environment, specifically air and drinking water quality. Look at workplace safety, medical procedures and drugs, automobiles, construction, fishery management, etc etc etc. Now compare them to countries that really don't have any enforced regulations or periods in history where the US didn't; the difference is profound. If you want to see what "no regulations" looks like, go live in Africa or southeast Asia for a while. Then come back and we'll talk.
To say that regulation is dead is to just give up on the idea that we can improve our regulatory systems. It's the same cynical bullshit we see all the time on slashdot. If there's one reason we don't have perfect regulation, it's that people sat around moaning about how it's impossible.
I'll tell you what doesn't go down well in America: lack of reading comprehension. Israel is not "exempted" -- they are a nuclear state. Iraq is not exempted either, as, having no nuclear weapons, they don't need an exemption. The "exemptions" you are worried about are for non-nuclear states that are considered (by the US) to be in non-compliance with NPT requirements. You're free to disagree with the policy, but at this point it doesn't seem as if you have any idea what you're disagreeing with.
Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental.
No, it's sugary AND fatty foods that the rats were being fed. The summary ignores the sugar, but you're not being any better by ignoring the fat. When the rats get addicted to plain bread or just piles of granulated sugar, then we can talk about your theory.
You've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow,
Nine billion dollars, I recall
You really don't know clouds, at all.
Yar, it were the Year of Our Lord twenty ought seven, and me shipmates and I did embarke on a trip of weighty providence. Our employer, having determined a need for many tonnes of fine whale oil, dispatched our doughty crew to 100 leagues off the shores of Greenland, there to hunt the mighty Leviathan from his home in murky depths. As be my wont, I packed my usual accoutrement for such a journey: a flask of Kentucky bourbon, a two-flue iron harpoon, and me trusty iPhone.
But lo, did we search from dawn to dusk for many days, sighting neither tail nor spout. We were discouraged, yes, but we salty dogs of the ocean kept our spirits high with rousing sea shanties, strong grog, and the freshest games direct from the app store. And then one night, as I whiled away my pre-dawn watch playing Galcon, a true sea monster of terrible size and power breached up before our bow. "Ahoy, mateys!" I cried, but hardly had the words left my mouth when the creature did smite our whaler with his mighty tail. Not a few sailors did he launch into the sea that day with his blow, and also me unlucky iPhone, which slipp'd me hands and tumbled into the gray and churning ocean. Old Nob, satisfied with his destruction, followed it down before we could get hook or shot on him.
And yet, that is not the end of this tale! Indeed, it were not a fortnight hence when we brought in our first catch of the journey. A small fellow, yes, but rich in blubber. As the boys flensed this beast for his oil, one suddenly raised a cry: "Hark! An iPhone!" And there it were, a deep as Jonah in the belly of this whale; me trusty old iPhone, good a new. Immediately I turned her on, and by the Good Lord did not me contacts, me apps, and all me videos of dancing cats came back at once. It were a miracle!
Exactly. See: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/more_details_on.html
Seriously slashdot, you're not even trying. Although, I have to say it was somewhat irresponsible of Schneier, who in general I have enormous respect for, to write an essay predicated on an unconfirmed rumor.
I'm a bit confused. You prefer movies that introduce elements at random and then never incorporate them into the plot? Red Herring: The Film? As I think Ensign Chekhov said, if you put a giant freakin' pterodactyl in the first act, it absolutely must swoop down on a futuristic helicopter in the third.
Of course, the story was still silly. But not because it followed basic plot structures that have been in place since Aristotle.
Crap, no work emails on Christmas Eve? Whatever shall we do?
Yes, everyone knows Europe is not known for its restaurant culture. Oh wait, I meant bizarro Europe.
Maybe we can genetically engineer cows to not taste so delicious -- problem solved!
If you live in the United States (or several other countries), you can probably get "naked" DSL without phone service. That's not to deny that there are good reasons to keep your land line, but FYI.
...my dog is a lot like Einstein, in that her hair goes everywhere and she refuses to accept quantum mechanics.
I could, for example, add "l0pht industries" to my list of trustees, or "Bruce Schneider"... Or even "Rob Malda", and those people would become part of the trust network that my friends would then rely on.
Bruce Schneider, Chiropractor and Cranio-Sacral therapist? He does seem pretty trustworthy, I guess.
Yeah, and I didn't even have to use my AK!
Ha! Well done, sir!
Ummm ... citation needed.
http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html
Each major department receives somewhere in the range of $50 billion.
I don't know what this means. It's certainly not literally true, since many departments receive considerably more or less.
The site is quoting only the IT expenditures, which range from $0.3 billion to $3 billion.
You must have an interesting definition of IT if it includes the following:
Top 5 Products or Services Sold
Aircraft, Fixed Wing $10,458,937,186
General Health Care Services $5,494,273,332
Aircraft, Rotary Wing $5,267,130,237
Liquid Propellants and Fuels, Petroleum Base $5,051,723,867
Trucks and Truck Tractors, Wheeled $4,120,425,697
If by "like 55% of the total budget" you mean "21% of the total budget," then you're correct.
Why leave off California? Anyway, I think a more valid comparison would be total dollar spent (see here -- the ranking is pretty much the same) rather than just the largest projects this year. Also, what you really should be doing is looking at net Federal expenditures per state, i.e. the difference between the Federal taxes paid and the Federal grants received. That would tell you whether Minnesota is actually subsidizing New York. The site in question doesn't cover that issue, but here's a pdf from The Tax Foundation that does. Look over the data yourself, but it looks to me like New York is subsidizing everyone else.
The summary is misleading. As best I can figure out, the site tracks ALL government spending, not merely IT. It's a little confusing because they provide a special tool just for IT investments -- the "IT Dashboard" -- which gives you some additional reports. But information about all (non-classified) spending is included on the main site. If you're interested in the DoD, look here.
Russia, which garners a large percentage of its GDP from oil revenue and has been hurt badly since the price of oil dropped, is certainly not "laughing" at any proposal that will reduce the price of oil. China isn't laughing either, as it's been hurt already by the effects of global warming: see crop loss, desertification aroung Beijing. They're between a rock and a hard place, since their social stability depends on rapidly growing GDP. But eventually they will be forced to deal with the issue. As for your claim that any US reductions will be "more than offset" by increases overseas, well: [citation needed] as they say.
Really? No one "on our side" has discussed this at all? That's a) wrong, and b) irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, but it didn't generally change this drastically in the space of several decades. Cars slow down all the time; it only hurts when the slow down really fucking fast. Get the idea?
I won't even address the conspiracy theories. That's right, the governments of a large portion of the world, the media, the scientific establishment, etc. are all in cahoots to grab power via cap and trade. It's funny though: I really don't think you favor dumping nasty chemicals into rivers. But folks like you (to use your construction) used the same arguments you're using now to attack regulations against that sort of thing. Because there will always be people who don't understand that, even if regulatory costs are high, so are the costs of doing nothing.