The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement".
The adjustments in the terrestrial record depend a lot on judgement, man.
Personally I love email, and have no desire to jump on the Facebook wagon or any of the other social media messaging systems, but I really am beginning to think there's just no way to have an open delivery system like SMTP, no matter how much you to glue on identification and authentication schemes.
I've been thinking about that too.....imagine we had a "decentralized" friendship system, like facebook (or a system like Diaspora, but good). How would you keep the spam out? Facebook can kind of do it, because they have the ultimate power, although even they have problems. Would it be possible to keep the spam down with something like that?
Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.
IF you have three different thermometers, and they give three different numbers, then you have set a minimum bound on your margin of error. The margin of error could still be larger.
What's the saying? "If you have a clock, then you know what time it is. If you have two clocks, then you're never sure."
But that's what I was trying to say, you can't make the people more important.
And I'm saying people are more important, and no process you can make will change that.
Note I'm not saying that we should get rid of the process, but if you hire Bernie Madoff, you can't expect processes to stop him from being evil.
Sometimes processes are unavoidable, and we need them, especially in large companies, to facilitate communication (and as you correctly mention, to stop bad behavior). But if you are thinking, "We have good processes, the quality of the people we hire doesn't matter," then your company will fail.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
() Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it () Requires too much cooperation from spammers (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers () Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists () Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email () Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (* ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (* ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft () Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers () Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical () Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable (*) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( *) Blacklists suck (*) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (*) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome () I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( *) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
This is all of government, and it has to be that way because you are spending public money
Right, I'm not saying we should get rid of process......rather, that process is less important than people. You need to focus on making sure your people are good: you can't expect the processes to make up for that.
Tor doesn't enhance privacy as soon as you send a cookie.
Tor hides your connections from intermediate parties. MITM attacks become a lot harder.
The server you are connecting to will probably still know who you are, mainly because you tell them in several different ways, of which cookies are only one.
There is some truth to the idea......you don't want your entire company dependent on a single person (bus factor).
When I write code, I try to write it in a way that someone else can easily follow me. But if you hire incompetent people, you'll get incompetent results, and your drones will crash. You can buy them faster computers or tell them to use more unit tests, but if they're incompetent, their unit tests will be incompetent, too. The focus needs to be on people, not process.
Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave. The Raytheon et al don't care, they just put more restrictive processes in place.
It won't help, if you don't have good people, you won't have good products, no matter how good your processes are.
You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service
They do. They put a lot more attention and effort into their real customers: the advertisers. (You can tell they are customers because they are the ones paying. Incidentally, the Slashdot subscriber subsystem is broken: if you subscribe, it doesn't work).
I think we would get better content if we got rid of ads. Consider the stuff you typically find on broadcast TV, to the for-pay stuff you see. There's not much on free tv anymore.
The answer is no, of course. In the next 30 years, two or three of those will be gone or mostly forgotten (especially in the consumer space, who are so fickle). That is just obvious. The more interesting question, which of those are most likely to die?
Which of these companies are the most likely to disappear:
Amazon
Apple
Facebook Google
Microsoft
Is this what U.S. politicians want? Not 'backdoors' in encryption, but being the keyholders?
Politicians don't know what they want, most of them barely understand encryption.
However that seems to be what they are getting at when they say "backdoors," if not being a keyholder, at least being able to get the key.
Might as well add that this quote:
This third party therefore always has the ability to decrypt conversations which are encrypted using these private keys,"
If a third party has the 'private' key, then it's not a private key. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, etc
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement".
The adjustments in the terrestrial record depend a lot on judgement, man.
That's a point worth considering.
Personally I love email, and have no desire to jump on the Facebook wagon or any of the other social media messaging systems, but I really am beginning to think there's just no way to have an open delivery system like SMTP, no matter how much you to glue on identification and authentication schemes.
I've been thinking about that too.....imagine we had a "decentralized" friendship system, like facebook (or a system like Diaspora, but good). How would you keep the spam out? Facebook can kind of do it, because they have the ultimate power, although even they have problems. Would it be possible to keep the spam down with something like that?
Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.
IF you have three different thermometers, and they give three different numbers, then you have set a minimum bound on your margin of error. The margin of error could still be larger.
What's the saying?
"If you have a clock, then you know what time it is.
If you have two clocks, then you're never sure."
But that's what I was trying to say, you can't make the people more important.
And I'm saying people are more important, and no process you can make will change that. Note I'm not saying that we should get rid of the process, but if you hire Bernie Madoff, you can't expect processes to stop him from being evil.
Sometimes processes are unavoidable, and we need them, especially in large companies, to facilitate communication (and as you correctly mention, to stop bad behavior). But if you are thinking, "We have good processes, the quality of the people we hire doesn't matter," then your company will fail.
Fail.
That's fine, feel free to check your own boxes
Last time I tried, it took my money and refused to give me anything in return!
This is all of government, and it has to be that way because you are spending public money
Right, I'm not saying we should get rid of process......rather, that process is less important than people. You need to focus on making sure your people are good: you can't expect the processes to make up for that.
Tor doesn't enhance privacy as soon as you send a cookie.
Tor hides your connections from intermediate parties. MITM attacks become a lot harder.
The server you are connecting to will probably still know who you are, mainly because you tell them in several different ways, of which cookies are only one.
There is some truth to the idea......you don't want your entire company dependent on a single person (bus factor).
When I write code, I try to write it in a way that someone else can easily follow me. But if you hire incompetent people, you'll get incompetent results, and your drones will crash. You can buy them faster computers or tell them to use more unit tests, but if they're incompetent, their unit tests will be incompetent, too. The focus needs to be on people, not process.
I will continue to call Pluto a planet despite what some overgrown astronomy club thinks it should be called
Yup lol
Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave. The Raytheon et al don't care, they just put more restrictive processes in place.
It won't help, if you don't have good people, you won't have good products, no matter how good your processes are.
Dark web = "anything not found in a search engine."
Open web = "anything found in a search engine." (presumably)
The definition of Dark is laughable to people who know that IRC etc exist, but the vast majority of people can't find things if they aren't in Google.
You're suggesting companies concentrate on engineering and customer service
They do. They put a lot more attention and effort into their real customers: the advertisers. (You can tell they are customers because they are the ones paying. Incidentally, the Slashdot subscriber subsystem is broken: if you subscribe, it doesn't work).
I'm shooting $20 your way today.
Oh, ,that's good to know, I didn't know they accepted donations.
Well said.
IAB is really reallly not interested in letting ABP decide what an acceptable ad is, and what is not.
I think we would get better content if we got rid of ads. Consider the stuff you typically find on broadcast TV, to the for-pay stuff you see. There's not much on free tv anymore.
IAB represents the advertisers, so it's not surprising they're upset at adblock. Ad blocking has just been going up and up.
The answer is no, of course. In the next 30 years, two or three of those will be gone or mostly forgotten (especially in the consumer space, who are so fickle). That is just obvious. The more interesting question, which of those are most likely to die?
Which of these companies are the most likely to disappear:
Amazon
Apple
Facebook
Google
Microsoft
but the real overwhelming Apple presence happened with the iPhone.
And even then, it's not hard to imagine Android overtaking them and Apple mostly losing the market.
For $20 btc I can sell you the secret to removing it from your system. Wallet 3J98t1WpEZ73CNmQviecrnyiWrnqRhWNLy I'll surely send you the info.
Is this what U.S. politicians want? Not 'backdoors' in encryption, but being the keyholders?
Politicians don't know what they want, most of them barely understand encryption.
However that seems to be what they are getting at when they say "backdoors," if not being a keyholder, at least being able to get the key.
Might as well add that this quote:
This third party therefore always has the ability to decrypt conversations which are encrypted using these private keys,"
If a third party has the 'private' key, then it's not a private key. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, etc
If they are to blame, then you and I are also to blame for buying their product. The chain of blame doesn't magically end when it comes to me.