There are people who reject this deal, and so we play by their game of rule by might and take their liberty by imprisoning them
If you don't consent to be ruled by the local strongest power, you're "playing a game of might-makes-right" and thus have consented - and deserve - to be ruled by the strongest power.
How convenient. A Catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and the powerful gets to be smug about it while he oppresses you, and rub your nose into your alleged consent.
There are a lot of ways people can interact other than "knuckle under to the current regime" and "knuckle under to the strongest nearby strong man" (which are usually equivalent).
The non-aggression principle comes to mind. The Babylon 5 phrasing of it is my favorite: "Never start a fight. Always finish one."
If you want to claim that "society" (i.e. "everybody but YOU the victim") or the strongest man or organization will rule, feel free. But don't lie to yourself by claiming their victims somehow consented to being oppressed.
Nov. 20, 1963: The U.S. Air Force accepted the first two F-4C fighters.... Known for their rather short, stubby wings and powerful engines, many aviators referred to them as "flying bricks" or said the aircraft proved "with a big enough engine, anything will fly."
Right NOW there are arguably MORE drones flying open-source firmware than any other! In fact open-source started the whole thing and DJI probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for open-source.
[partial list of such projects]
Maybe the maintainers / copyright holders of those projects will think this is a good time to check the code on the DJI drone for license violations. B-)
I'll be really surprised when you have to agree to a EULA upon entering this messed up world.
Some philosophers (since at least Rousseau in 1762) call it "The Social Contract". They allege you "sign" it by existing, trading away some of your freedom for alleged benefits from interacting with the "society" composed of the others around you. They use it to justify the State imposing controls on individuals.
Think of it as an invisible shrink-wrap agreement on your amniotic sac.
This, of course, bends the concept of "contract" so far out of shape that it shatters. (Hint: To be valid a contract must be voluntarily entered into by informed adults and include an exchange of valuable considerations in both directions.)
[constructing sauce-for-the-gander equivalent]: "The issues that are really important to science are protecting gun rights, lowering tax burdens and protecting religious liberty. What do you mean I'm just co-opting 'science' for my right-wing political beliefs? I didn't say anything about 'the right' you're just inserting terms!"
What's doubly funny about your example is that when the issues in question actually ARE examined by scientists in the relevant fields, they often come to conclusions that the left then ignores and/or flames for alleged political bias.
Or at least hold off until the actual subjects of TFAs have been discussed for a bit.
I'm getting really tired of scrolling past several screens of political non sequiturs to get to the actual meat of the discussion.
Yes, I know Carthage Must Be Destroyed. But at least Cato had the grace to wait until AFTER he'd made his points on the actual business at hand before he'd sign off with that.
How many man-hours of investigator time plus the cost of the equipment used plus whatever else is involved that we don't know about vs the value of that crap-job to the citizen who should have had it.
Don't forget to include the value of the jobs lost vs. saved due to this actions effect on the perception of whether the law is being enforced or ignored by the authorities.
In this case "The Net" is a system including, not just the equipment, protocols, and administrators, but also the users. But it's another case where John's aphorism was dead-on.
Why would anyone except the patent holders weeping over the end of their 20 year gravy train ever suggest that MP3 is "Dead"?
So they can sucker you into buying into another still-patented format, where they can collect more gravy.
Much like (I hear claims that) DuPont sponsored the research blaming the common chlorofluorocarbon Freon product for ozone depletion - just as the patent was about to expire, but patents on some alternative refrigerants still had a way to go.
The airplanes were fully fueled. The fuel basically ignited on crash and flooded the top floors and then dripped down over the elevator shafts and stairs.
Also: The pilots banked the planes just before impact, so the fuel was distributed across at least three floors. (You can see it happen in the film of the second plane's impact.)
Once enough (say, three) floors had collapsed onto one below, the load on that floor was enough to detach it from the sides of the building (where the vertical strength was) and drop that weight plus the weight of another floor onto the one below that. repeat down to ground level.
The detached floors were the horizontal strength, so when enough were down in the middle of the tower, the side walls buckled and the upper part came down (tilting slightly as the sidewall collapse was slightly uneven).
No mystery at all, once you know even a little about how the building was constructed.
Do smokers really die early on average? It seems like every one that I've known kept hacking and wheezing miserably to a ripe old age, ultimately costing the health care system more in the long run.
Yes, they do.
It's sampling bias: You just happen to know a bunch of old, hacking, smokers because they're the ones that didn't die off yet - while the young ones mostly aren't yet to the hacking stage.
Fast forward a couple generations of executives and you find:
- A German automaker with executives who decided that cheating was the way to go, and actually detected whether there was a driver (e.g. steering wheel moving) and did the same cycle differently.
- An American automaker (the former big-three company I didn't work for back in the day, now owned by an Italian automaker) accused of cheating because they didn't do as well in some extreme conditions outside the testing regime as they did within it, and have a difference of opinion vs. the regulators on what some of the law means.
The first is cheating. The second is up for debate (and being debated in the legal system). But neither is what this "Testing Failure" article was about.
It's time to just accept that emissions testing is never going to work right and will always be cheated,
As I read the article (not having read the referred-to paper):
This wasn't about cheating. This was about the government-prescribed test cycles not correctly modelling the actual average driving cycle of the world's fleet of vehicles, the academic's model of the actual fleet emissions being somewhat off, the error happening to be on the low side, and recent measurements updating the model.
The mandated emissions testing cycle was KNOWN FROM THE START to be only roughly representative of overall vehicle usage. (That's why "your mileage may vary". Though on-the-road emissions are hard to measure, mileage is easy, and mileage during the test cycle falls out of a simple calculation of carbon emission as CO, CO2, unburned hydrocarbons, and exhaust volume. And it is - that's where sticker mileage comes from. When they systematically mismatch you know the test cycle mismatches average usage.)
And this was FINE. As long as the testing was REPEATABLE, ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL to the actual cycle emissions, and covered all the common driving modes, it was an effective tool to drive emission-reduction engineering and legislation. The engineering might tend to improve the test results slightly more than fleet average (because that's where the selection pressure of the evolutionary algorithm happens to be). But it still drove a DRASTIC than fleet average (because that's where the selection pressure drop in emissions and a resulting drastic, and measurable, improvement in air quality.
Cheating consists of having the engine control recognize whether the vehicle is running the test cycle and changing its behavior - being good on emissions during the test, bad on emissions but better on performance and/or mileage when not on the test.
Voice of experience here: I wrote emissions analysis and engine control software for two of the Big Three during the 70s and 80s.
We all knew that it would be possible to write cheats into the code. And we all knew not to do it - because it would not only be bad for the environment, but it would also eventually be caught, and cause the company massive trouble. So the engineers were very careful not to do it, the managers were careful not to give the engineers an incentive to do it, and upper management put in drastic organizational controls to both prevent and detect it.
Fast forward a couple generations of executives and you find:
- A German automaker with executives who decided that cheating was the way to go.
- An American automaker (the former big-three company I didn't work for
I'm totally shocked that the Wall Street Journal might hold this opinion.
They used to be useful. They tended to have real news, and lots of it because their subscriber base used it to make multi-million dollar business decisions.
Then in 2007 Rupert Murdoch bought it from the Bancroft family. And in 2008 he replaced the editor. (Newscorp has a history of letting acquisitions run for a year or so before starting to meddle.)
Also: The gain was more than offset by the increase in the number of incoming people employed (H1-Bs, Green Card, "undocumented", etc.). The native population continued to lose jobs.
This isn't purely about partisan US politics, this is about a web of influential hard to far right politicians acting with Putin's backing - Le Pen, Farage, Banks, Trump, Assange, are all interconnected on this and not by chance meetings, but by explicit, intentional communications with each other. Even outside of the Anglo-American-Franco circle it extends throughout Europe, Hungary's Jobbik, Greece's Golden Dawn, Geert Wilders, as so on - they're all very clearly linked with a little bit of research into this pro-Russian, anti-Western political web plaguing the West right now, and it should be horrifying to anyone in the West that values their wealth and freedom.
Sounds to me like you're in favor of a globalist new world order, think progress toward it is being nibbled to death by ducks, and are promulgating a new, McCarthy Era - style, Russian menace nightmare to counter it.
Now that people can get unfiltered news on the Internet (astroturf and all) and the mainstream media are exposed as shills for the 1%, they can see how badly they're being screwed (even if they can't always tell how the power screwdriver works). Result: A bunch of movements to dismantle the machine. And a general population that can recognize ideas like yours for what they are.
Unlike what they're opposing, they don't need coordination from some top puppetmaster. But (like the 13 colonies working with France) many of them are willing to find inspiration and accept support from wherever it might be found.
People tend to get the government they deserve. George Carlin had it right.
Blaming the victims may make a good kick-off point for a comedy routine. But it's also a handy way to spike efforts to fix the problem, thus benefiting the victimizers.
After the media "sucked the air out of the room" when any of the other Republican primary reform candidates were talking (by focusing on Trump - whom they though would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to trounce), Trump/Pence was the only checkbox on the presidential ballot that looked like it might put a painful spike in Washington's increasingly corrupt business-as-usual, or stop a slide into totalitarianism or civil war.
What about this line: "...Russia's targeting of electoral systems..." The word "systems" implies that the evil Russians were actually hacking the voting machines.
They could have made that non-fake just by adding one word: "... Russia's alleged targeting of electoral systems..."
But that would have brought down the whole propaganda operation by inserting doubt into the big claim, which is an absolute no-no if you're using the "Big Lie" methodology.
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet [sic] Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
Complete with a typo, of course. B-) We MUST be traditional about these things.
These botnets use weakly-protected IoT devices to overwhelm websites and other networks. "In the future," Coats says in his report, "state and non-state actors will likely use IoT devices to support intelligence operations or domestic security or to access or attack targeted computer networks."
Not to worry. There might not be a functioning Internet around for a while.
Last Friday enough information came out about the Intel AMT authentication bug to let people of ordinary skill construct a worm using it for transport, which could take over the bulk of the Internet-connected Intel-based devices - or at least the subset run by IT shops which use AMT for remote administration. This could easily be weaponized to effectively take out the Internet, quickly, for substantial periods of time, and possibly repeatedly.
The bad guys have had almost a week to work on it now. If we don't start seeing some fallout by next week, it just means that everybody who's doing it is saving it for a big hit, and/or is very good at stealth (with the stuff they're already spreading).
But given how many could be playing, I find it hard to believe SOMEBODY won't screw up and do something visible by accident. (Something like the claim that the Morris Worm was an experiment that escaped the lab during development.)
= = = = =
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
Isn't this blatant anti-competitive behavior by two near monopolies???
Yes.
But the FTC does not currently have authority over Internet service, as part of the "hands off the Internet" legislation intended to keep regulation and taxation from stifling it.
I have been arguing for years that the FTC, rather than the FCC, is the right agency for handling things like Network Neutrality, because the pathologies we see are almost entirely the result of either monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior, and that (if it is to be regulated at all) the right way to do it is to pass legislation to designate the FTC as the responsible agency.
In fact, I wrote a paper about it a few years ago. And I got an opportunity, a few days after Trump's election, to get a copy of it into the hands of an FTC official who was tasked with asking techies for suggestions on what the commission could do to improve the regulatory environment for tech. (I have no idea whether anything came of this, but I have daydreams about it becoming a classic among the transition teams. B-) )
You will note that the Trump administration is now talking about moving Network Neutrality regulation from the FCC to the FTC. (In fact, there was a slashdot article a couple days ago, with most posters flaming them for the "remove it from the FCC" part of such a piece of legislation.)
Yes, it could be a gift to the Internet cartels if they just did the "remove it from the FCC" part. Something akin to how California's cost-saving move to de-instutionalize the mentally handicapped" (or whatever phrase was politically correct at the time) and provide them with outpatient services led to an explosion of mentally challenged homeless when only the first half was implemented. But the FCC isn't really well set up to handle a competitive problem, and their approach of trying to apply a technical solution is an example of making a simple problem more complex rather than fixing it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who reject this deal, and so we play by their game of rule by might and take their liberty by imprisoning them
If you don't consent to be ruled by the local strongest power, you're "playing a game of might-makes-right" and thus have consented - and deserve - to be ruled by the strongest power.
How convenient. A Catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and the powerful gets to be smug about it while he oppresses you, and rub your nose into your alleged consent.
There are a lot of ways people can interact other than "knuckle under to the current regime" and "knuckle under to the strongest nearby strong man" (which are usually equivalent).
The non-aggression principle comes to mind. The Babylon 5 phrasing of it is my favorite: "Never start a fight. Always finish one."
If you want to claim that "society" (i.e. "everybody but YOU the victim") or the strongest man or organization will rule, feel free. But don't lie to yourself by claiming their victims somehow consented to being oppressed.
Right NOW there are arguably MORE drones flying open-source firmware than any other! In fact open-source started the whole thing and DJI probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for open-source.
[partial list of such projects]
Maybe the maintainers / copyright holders of those projects will think this is a good time to check the code on the DJI drone for license violations. B-)
I'll be really surprised when you have to agree to a EULA upon entering this messed up world.
Some philosophers (since at least Rousseau in 1762) call it "The Social Contract". They allege you "sign" it by existing, trading away some of your freedom for alleged benefits from interacting with the "society" composed of the others around you. They use it to justify the State imposing controls on individuals.
Think of it as an invisible shrink-wrap agreement on your amniotic sac.
This, of course, bends the concept of "contract" so far out of shape that it shatters. (Hint: To be valid a contract must be voluntarily entered into by informed adults and include an exchange of valuable considerations in both directions.)
[constructing sauce-for-the-gander equivalent]: "The issues that are really important to science are protecting gun rights, lowering tax burdens and protecting religious liberty. What do you mean I'm just co-opting 'science' for my right-wing political beliefs? I didn't say anything about 'the right' you're just inserting terms!"
What's doubly funny about your example is that when the issues in question actually ARE examined by scientists in the relevant fields, they often come to conclusions that the left then ignores and/or flames for alleged political bias.
Or at least hold off until the actual subjects of TFAs have been discussed for a bit.
I'm getting really tired of scrolling past several screens of political non sequiturs to get to the actual meat of the discussion.
Yes, I know Carthage Must Be Destroyed. But at least Cato had the grace to wait until AFTER he'd made his points on the actual business at hand before he'd sign off with that.
Cost vs benefit analysis needed.
How many man-hours of investigator time plus the cost of the equipment used plus whatever else is involved that we don't know about vs the value of that crap-job to the citizen who should have had it.
Don't forget to include the value of the jobs lost vs. saved due to this actions effect on the perception of whether the law is being enforced or ignored by the authorities.
Patients WITH MORE SERIOUS ISSUES tend to be allocated to MORE EXPERIENCED (ie: odler) DOCTORS.
You called it.
Control for that classic selection bias was conspicuously absent from the description of the methodology.
(I was about to point this out but you beat me to it, and did so very nicely.)
"... and routes around it." - John Gilmore
In this case "The Net" is a system including, not just the equipment, protocols, and administrators, but also the users. But it's another case where John's aphorism was dead-on.
Why would anyone except the patent holders weeping over the end of their 20 year gravy train ever suggest that MP3 is "Dead"?
So they can sucker you into buying into another still-patented format, where they can collect more gravy.
Much like (I hear claims that) DuPont sponsored the research blaming the common chlorofluorocarbon Freon product for ozone depletion - just as the patent was about to expire, but patents on some alternative refrigerants still had a way to go.
The airplanes were fully fueled. The fuel basically ignited on crash and flooded the top floors and then dripped down over the elevator shafts and stairs.
Also: The pilots banked the planes just before impact, so the fuel was distributed across at least three floors. (You can see it happen in the film of the second plane's impact.)
Once enough (say, three) floors had collapsed onto one below, the load on that floor was enough to detach it from the sides of the building (where the vertical strength was) and drop that weight plus the weight of another floor onto the one below that. repeat down to ground level.
The detached floors were the horizontal strength, so when enough were down in the middle of the tower, the side walls buckled and the upper part came down (tilting slightly as the sidewall collapse was slightly uneven).
No mystery at all, once you know even a little about how the building was constructed.
Do smokers really die early on average? It seems like every one that I've known kept hacking and wheezing miserably to a ripe old age, ultimately costing the health care system more in the long run.
Yes, they do.
It's sampling bias: You just happen to know a bunch of old, hacking, smokers because they're the ones that didn't die off yet - while the young ones mostly aren't yet to the hacking stage.
Fast forward a couple generations of executives and you find:
- A German automaker with executives who decided that cheating was the way to go, and actually detected whether there was a driver (e.g. steering wheel moving) and did the same cycle differently.
- An American automaker (the former big-three company I didn't work for back in the day, now owned by an Italian automaker) accused of cheating because they didn't do as well in some extreme conditions outside the testing regime as they did within it, and have a difference of opinion vs. the regulators on what some of the law means.
The first is cheating. The second is up for debate (and being debated in the legal system). But neither is what this "Testing Failure" article was about.
It's time to just accept that emissions testing is never going to work right and will always be cheated,
As I read the article (not having read the referred-to paper):
This wasn't about cheating. This was about the government-prescribed test cycles not correctly modelling the actual average driving cycle of the world's fleet of vehicles, the academic's model of the actual fleet emissions being somewhat off, the error happening to be on the low side, and recent measurements updating the model.
The mandated emissions testing cycle was KNOWN FROM THE START to be only roughly representative of overall vehicle usage. (That's why "your mileage may vary". Though on-the-road emissions are hard to measure, mileage is easy, and mileage during the test cycle falls out of a simple calculation of carbon emission as CO, CO2, unburned hydrocarbons, and exhaust volume. And it is - that's where sticker mileage comes from. When they systematically mismatch you know the test cycle mismatches average usage.)
And this was FINE. As long as the testing was REPEATABLE, ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL to the actual cycle emissions, and covered all the common driving modes, it was an effective tool to drive emission-reduction engineering and legislation. The engineering might tend to improve the test results slightly more than fleet average (because that's where the selection pressure of the evolutionary algorithm happens to be). But it still drove a DRASTIC than fleet average (because that's where the selection pressure drop in emissions and a resulting drastic, and measurable, improvement in air quality.
Cheating consists of having the engine control recognize whether the vehicle is running the test cycle and changing its behavior - being good on emissions during the test, bad on emissions but better on performance and/or mileage when not on the test.
Voice of experience here: I wrote emissions analysis and engine control software for two of the Big Three during the 70s and 80s.
We all knew that it would be possible to write cheats into the code. And we all knew not to do it - because it would not only be bad for the environment, but it would also eventually be caught, and cause the company massive trouble. So the engineers were very careful not to do it, the managers were careful not to give the engineers an incentive to do it, and upper management put in drastic organizational controls to both prevent and detect it.
Fast forward a couple generations of executives and you find:
- A German automaker with executives who decided that cheating was the way to go.
- An American automaker (the former big-three company I didn't work for
ME 11 is x86, prior versions were ARC, and I haven't seen anything about a plan to move to ARM.
Thanks. I misrememberd and stand corrected.
Used to be Atom. I through I heard they went to ARM in recent models but not sure.
I'm totally shocked that the Wall Street Journal might hold this opinion.
They used to be useful. They tended to have real news, and lots of it because their subscriber base used it to make multi-million dollar business decisions.
Then in 2007 Rupert Murdoch bought it from the Bancroft family. And in 2008 he replaced the editor. (Newscorp has a history of letting acquisitions run for a year or so before starting to meddle.)
Also: The gain was more than offset by the increase in the number of incoming people employed (H1-Bs, Green Card, "undocumented", etc.). The native population continued to lose jobs.
... this is way bigger than just America. ...
This isn't purely about partisan US politics, this is about a web of influential hard to far right politicians acting with Putin's backing - Le Pen, Farage, Banks, Trump, Assange, are all interconnected on this and not by chance meetings, but by explicit, intentional communications with each other. Even outside of the Anglo-American-Franco circle it extends throughout Europe, Hungary's Jobbik, Greece's Golden Dawn, Geert Wilders, as so on - they're all very clearly linked with a little bit of research into this pro-Russian, anti-Western political web plaguing the West right now, and it should be horrifying to anyone in the West that values their wealth and freedom.
Sounds to me like you're in favor of a globalist new world order, think progress toward it is being nibbled to death by ducks, and are promulgating a new, McCarthy Era - style, Russian menace nightmare to counter it.
Now that people can get unfiltered news on the Internet (astroturf and all) and the mainstream media are exposed as shills for the 1%, they can see how badly they're being screwed (even if they can't always tell how the power screwdriver works). Result: A bunch of movements to dismantle the machine. And a general population that can recognize ideas like yours for what they are.
Unlike what they're opposing, they don't need coordination from some top puppetmaster. But (like the 13 colonies working with France) many of them are willing to find inspiration and accept support from wherever it might be found.
People tend to get the government they deserve. George Carlin had it right.
Blaming the victims may make a good kick-off point for a comedy routine. But it's also a handy way to spike efforts to fix the problem, thus benefiting the victimizers.
After the media "sucked the air out of the room" when any of the other Republican primary reform candidates were talking (by focusing on Trump - whom they though would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to trounce), Trump/Pence was the only checkbox on the presidential ballot that looked like it might put a painful spike in Washington's increasingly corrupt business-as-usual, or stop a slide into totalitarianism or civil war.
What about this line:
"...Russia's targeting of electoral systems..."
The word "systems" implies that the evil Russians were actually hacking the voting machines.
They could have made that non-fake just by adding one word: "... Russia's alleged targeting of electoral systems ..."
But that would have brought down the whole propaganda operation by inserting doubt into the big claim, which is an absolute no-no if you're using the "Big Lie" methodology.
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet [sic] Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
Complete with a typo, of course. B-) We MUST be traditional about these things.
These botnets use weakly-protected IoT devices to overwhelm websites and other networks. "In the future," Coats says in his report, "state and non-state actors will likely use IoT devices to support intelligence operations or domestic security or to access or attack targeted computer networks."
Not to worry. There might not be a functioning Internet around for a while.
Last Friday enough information came out about the Intel AMT authentication bug to let people of ordinary skill construct a worm using it for transport, which could take over the bulk of the Internet-connected Intel-based devices - or at least the subset run by IT shops which use AMT for remote administration. This could easily be weaponized to effectively take out the Internet, quickly, for substantial periods of time, and possibly repeatedly.
The bad guys have had almost a week to work on it now. If we don't start seeing some fallout by next week, it just means that everybody who's doing it is saving it for a big hit, and/or is very good at stealth (with the stuff they're already spreading).
But given how many could be playing, I find it hard to believe SOMEBODY won't screw up and do something visible by accident. (Something like the claim that the Morris Worm was an experiment that escaped the lab during development.)
= = = = =
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
If I had mod points today you'd get one. ROTFL!
Isn't this blatant anti-competitive behavior by two near monopolies???
Yes.
But the FTC does not currently have authority over Internet service, as part of the "hands off the Internet" legislation intended to keep regulation and taxation from stifling it.
I have been arguing for years that the FTC, rather than the FCC, is the right agency for handling things like Network Neutrality, because the pathologies we see are almost entirely the result of either monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior, and that (if it is to be regulated at all) the right way to do it is to pass legislation to designate the FTC as the responsible agency.
In fact, I wrote a paper about it a few years ago. And I got an opportunity, a few days after Trump's election, to get a copy of it into the hands of an FTC official who was tasked with asking techies for suggestions on what the commission could do to improve the regulatory environment for tech. (I have no idea whether anything came of this, but I have daydreams about it becoming a classic among the transition teams. B-) )
You will note that the Trump administration is now talking about moving Network Neutrality regulation from the FCC to the FTC. (In fact, there was a slashdot article a couple days ago, with most posters flaming them for the "remove it from the FCC" part of such a piece of legislation.)
Yes, it could be a gift to the Internet cartels if they just did the "remove it from the FCC" part. Something akin to how California's cost-saving move to de-instutionalize the mentally handicapped" (or whatever phrase was politically correct at the time) and provide them with outpatient services led to an explosion of mentally challenged homeless when only the first half was implemented. But the FCC isn't really well set up to handle a competitive problem, and their approach of trying to apply a technical solution is an example of making a simple problem more complex rather than fixing it.