Even if anyone buys the premise that Russia was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Trump (in secret) after spending millions of dollars to support Clintons (in the open), so what? Clinton is a known criminal. Why would we care if its Russia helping us to expose a criminal instead of (for example) France? If the FBI and the DOJ were so corrupt that they would not charge a candidate of the same party as the sitting president, shouldn't we be thankful if some foreign power were to reveal the depth of their corruption? Why is their doing us a favor such a problem for us? I mean, there is no question that Clinton committed multiple crimes and that she completely destroyed the good faith and credit of The United States by blatantly reneging on international agreements which US entered in good faith. Why is someone spending an amount so small (that it wouldn't buy even 1 Super Bowl ad) considered election influence if the end result was to shine the light on misdeeds of a criminal running for office?
Dems, at the federal level at least, generally don't support gays blacks or whatever just because they want their vote, but because they think humans should be treated humanely.
Yeah, right. Is that why Dems constantly try to dismantle charter schools? Because they are the best chance that blacks have to get quality education in the ghetto? No, it's because the contributions (aka "bribes") from public employee unions are more important than the humane treatment of blacks. Even Obama dismantled predominantly-black charter schools.
But Russians spent more on Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) than that. In fact, RF paid out 500k to Bill Clinton for just 1 speech. Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated to Clinton foundation by state-actor donors. 85% of that money was spent on Clinton family expenses rather than on charity. How is this someone not getting caught? There was nothing to catch. Clintons were openly bribed by foreign powers. Why would Russians spend millions on Clintons in the open only to go and then spend a few hundred thousand on Trump in secret? The whole Russian influence story doesn't make any sense if you consider all the publicly known information which you are asked to not consider as part of the story. Why are unproven accusations and innuendos (that Russia helped Trump) more important than what is known for a fact (that Russia helped Clinton)?
The troubling trend is not that Microsoft is abandoning the business it never had. It's that it is abandoning the business it still dominates in order to bet on the business in which they are a distant second. They are literally abandoning the desktop in order to benefit their cloud business. They are doing everything they can to make a Windows desktop just a heavy terminal to their cloud solutions. They overburden it with telemetry. They don't let desktop office caches to store templates downloaded from the net for more than a limited period. They are willing to give away MSVS as long as the help is only viewed online (the paid version has a local copy of help). They end of life systems which are less reliant on network and which are more local-media centered. It's all turning a Windows desktop into a Chromebook. Well, guess what? The market hates Chromebook. People like desktop as a self-contained autonomous serverless jack knife solution. If they use a Windows Desktop, they are not looking for an over performing client to the network. They are looking for a network-capable all-in-one solution. This is the niche which made Windows XP (and to a lesser extent Windows 7) the most successful consumer desktop operating system of all time. Windows XP survived for 15 years essentially unchanged. And that's an operating system used by end users. There is a golden middle between too much and too little and it can only be discovered through experimenting -- not through careful planning. Once you've discovered it, it is plainly arrogant to think you can outthink and out-plan the evolution.
It's the same standard from what I can tell. If you are free to make incorrect statements in journal submissions, you should be free to make them in Internet posts. It's the same principle. Both are vetted through a review by the peers of the poster. Both are susceptible to clusterfuck. It's as free as speech gets. Anything attempt to regulate it makes speech less free and increases instances of regulators' priorities leaking into the information stream to drive an agenda.
Putin was in politics long before he was President. He left KGB with the title of Lieutenant Colonel -- hardly a high profile operative. He became a mid-level politicl operative after the collapse of the USSR operative. As for whether anything replaced KGB, that's irrelevant. Wehrmacht was replaced by the East German and West German militaries after WWII. That doesn't mean that one would expect a mid-level officer of Wehrmacht to serve in either West German of East German army. I would not expect most of USSR operatives to retain any kind of power in the post-USSR Russia. Yeltsin went so far as to ban and defund the former Communist party institutions after the collapse. He also had to disband the parliament and force a new election after pro-Communist parties got the majority and tried to muscle him from power. If anything, being anti-communist was the only was to rise to any kind of political power in the post USSR Russia. Modern Russian state is not pro-Soviet. It's national socialist. But it's difficult to imagine how anyone who remained committed to pro-soviet agenda could have remained anywhere even close to power.
Was he in FSB? KGB collapsed with the collapse of the USSR. Modern Russian state was born out of a rebellion against the USSR. So you would not necessarily expect the modern Russian state's security apparatus to have priorities matching anything even close that of the USSR.
A politically adroit person who knows nothing about the executive position can probably gut their area, eliminate all but a small group of employees, and look like a genius for a while, running their organization like a real boss, with miraculous low payroll.
No, a politically adroit person would find people who would produce more value to the firm than the division did before him. Reducing your own body count is the last thing an executive wants. An executive justifies his personal growth in power by managing more people. Reducing his head count is tantamount to admitting that his role is growing less relevant. Increasing output contribution to the overall organizational success justifies growing your division (ie, increasing your relevance).
The best development manager I've ever seen had a philosophy degree and no formal technical training. He was a very talented programmer and the kind of manager who knew how to nurture people into life-long successful careers.
Being politically adroit is an essential job skill for a high level executive. You wouldn't won't to work for an executive who has technical skills, but who doesn't know how to play politics. Your part of the organization would quickly become the guys with all the responsibilities and no say. Everything that's ever wrong would quickly become your fault and everything that's right would never be credited to you. You may think that "winning" should not be important to a productive environment, but you will stop thinking that way once you try losing.
Would you refuse to name a criminal out of fear of putting an innocent person in jail?
That's exactly what every responsible news outlet does. Every perpetrator of a crime is always reported to allegedly have committed a crime until they are convicted. Reporting otherwise would cast aspersions on someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime and who, therefore, is considered innocent under our system of government. Since you simply don't know that someone is paid to hack unless you were present in the meeting in which the money was exchange for the services (and even then you don't know if it was a joke), you can't claim that someone is saying something because they are a paid shill or because they genuinely believe what they are saying. I don't know where you get the whole "hacker" nonsense, btw. Shilling for a cause has been considered hacking.
This will work until Facebook has a false positive on such identification twice. First time it will sow doubt. After the 2nd time the whole mechanism will become a subject for ridicule.
Yeah, the whole point is to preserve anonymity while identifying likely propaganda. I am guessing you already understand that. And that's why you are so frustrated -- you want to destroy anonymity.
As far as you know. Newt Gingrich paid for millions for twitter followers when he ran for President (in 2012). And most of his followers were identified as having fake names. So that campaign definitely did have large numbers of fake accounts. Just because some other campaign didn't, doesn't mean that principle does not hold. Groupthink trumps authoritative sources. The only way to counter fake news is to identify the location of the sources or to show that they are posting through the same VPNs.
The more value they provide, the more accurate they'll become. There will be huge financial pressure and a lot of competition to get geolocation right if every post will depend on it. As for VPN's, you can detect that, too. And simply identify it as such. Not much value in hiding behind a VPN if your posts also say that you are posting through a VPN which ends in UK (even though you are most likely posting from Novosibirsk).
Uh, or maybe just if you're one of a bunch of people spending hundreds of thousands on ads, pretending to be from American political organizations, and operating out of an FSB front in St. Petersburg?
This doesn't quite work. Creating thousands or even millions of fake accounts to create a perception of groupthink narrative cannot be countered with 1 authoritative source. The groupthink news can easily smear a few authoritative sources by painting them as propaganda. I was surprised when roughly 5-10 years ago people started mocking the idea of "freedom" on the internet as foolish. It's not so surprising when you realize that foreign propaganda outlets manage to convince their own populations that this is a foolish notion and they use the same methods on domestic US consumption. Identifying location of each post is the only way to counter this smurfing of information bombardment. Imagine if the (now infamous) story about "Macedonian content farmers" was real. If all the posts they made on social media were real, they would have little to no impact. Who would trust a massive flood of posts from Macedonia?
You can preserve anonymity and (mostly) know when someone is posting from a foreign country. Simply put geolocation of each post, but don't put the exact location. Only identify the municipality and the country from which the post was made.
I was being sarcastic, as you may have guessed. To your point though, why wouldn't there be a Constitutional amendment authorizing other branches of armed forces? Would any state really object to it?
I didn't miss it. I just found it boring, uninsightful and demonstrative of the ignorance so often displayed by those who use invisible hand as some boogie monster. They miss that it's the immediate wishes expressed by the people at any one time.
Wait, are you treating that living document as a legal document? What's next? You gonna think that the Government has the domain over tariffs and border protection?
Well, in all fairness, most companies also have prohibitions on being drunk on the job. If you test positive for alcohol, that would qualify you for dismissal, too. It's just that no one ever tests.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if anyone buys the premise that Russia was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Trump (in secret) after spending millions of dollars to support Clintons (in the open), so what? Clinton is a known criminal. Why would we care if its Russia helping us to expose a criminal instead of (for example) France? If the FBI and the DOJ were so corrupt that they would not charge a candidate of the same party as the sitting president, shouldn't we be thankful if some foreign power were to reveal the depth of their corruption? Why is their doing us a favor such a problem for us? I mean, there is no question that Clinton committed multiple crimes and that she completely destroyed the good faith and credit of The United States by blatantly reneging on international agreements which US entered in good faith. Why is someone spending an amount so small (that it wouldn't buy even 1 Super Bowl ad) considered election influence if the end result was to shine the light on misdeeds of a criminal running for office?
What are you talking about? Nether Clinton is orange.
Dems, at the federal level at least, generally don't support gays blacks or whatever just because they want their vote, but because they think humans should be treated humanely.
Yeah, right. Is that why Dems constantly try to dismantle charter schools? Because they are the best chance that blacks have to get quality education in the ghetto? No, it's because the contributions (aka "bribes") from public employee unions are more important than the humane treatment of blacks. Even Obama dismantled predominantly-black charter schools.
But Russians spent more on Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) than that. In fact, RF paid out 500k to Bill Clinton for just 1 speech. Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated to Clinton foundation by state-actor donors. 85% of that money was spent on Clinton family expenses rather than on charity. How is this someone not getting caught? There was nothing to catch. Clintons were openly bribed by foreign powers. Why would Russians spend millions on Clintons in the open only to go and then spend a few hundred thousand on Trump in secret? The whole Russian influence story doesn't make any sense if you consider all the publicly known information which you are asked to not consider as part of the story. Why are unproven accusations and innuendos (that Russia helped Trump) more important than what is known for a fact (that Russia helped Clinton)?
The troubling trend is not that Microsoft is abandoning the business it never had. It's that it is abandoning the business it still dominates in order to bet on the business in which they are a distant second. They are literally abandoning the desktop in order to benefit their cloud business. They are doing everything they can to make a Windows desktop just a heavy terminal to their cloud solutions. They overburden it with telemetry. They don't let desktop office caches to store templates downloaded from the net for more than a limited period. They are willing to give away MSVS as long as the help is only viewed online (the paid version has a local copy of help). They end of life systems which are less reliant on network and which are more local-media centered. It's all turning a Windows desktop into a Chromebook. Well, guess what? The market hates Chromebook. People like desktop as a self-contained autonomous serverless jack knife solution. If they use a Windows Desktop, they are not looking for an over performing client to the network. They are looking for a network-capable all-in-one solution. This is the niche which made Windows XP (and to a lesser extent Windows 7) the most successful consumer desktop operating system of all time. Windows XP survived for 15 years essentially unchanged. And that's an operating system used by end users. There is a golden middle between too much and too little and it can only be discovered through experimenting -- not through careful planning. Once you've discovered it, it is plainly arrogant to think you can outthink and out-plan the evolution.
It's the same standard from what I can tell. If you are free to make incorrect statements in journal submissions, you should be free to make them in Internet posts. It's the same principle. Both are vetted through a review by the peers of the poster. Both are susceptible to clusterfuck. It's as free as speech gets. Anything attempt to regulate it makes speech less free and increases instances of regulators' priorities leaking into the information stream to drive an agenda.
Putin was in politics long before he was President. He left KGB with the title of Lieutenant Colonel -- hardly a high profile operative. He became a mid-level politicl operative after the collapse of the USSR operative. As for whether anything replaced KGB, that's irrelevant. Wehrmacht was replaced by the East German and West German militaries after WWII. That doesn't mean that one would expect a mid-level officer of Wehrmacht to serve in either West German of East German army. I would not expect most of USSR operatives to retain any kind of power in the post-USSR Russia. Yeltsin went so far as to ban and defund the former Communist party institutions after the collapse. He also had to disband the parliament and force a new election after pro-Communist parties got the majority and tried to muscle him from power. If anything, being anti-communist was the only was to rise to any kind of political power in the post USSR Russia. Modern Russian state is not pro-Soviet. It's national socialist. But it's difficult to imagine how anyone who remained committed to pro-soviet agenda could have remained anywhere even close to power.
Was he in FSB? KGB collapsed with the collapse of the USSR. Modern Russian state was born out of a rebellion against the USSR. So you would not necessarily expect the modern Russian state's security apparatus to have priorities matching anything even close that of the USSR.
Last I heard MS can't end-of-life Windows fast enough. This is despite the clear wishes of its customers.
A politically adroit person who knows nothing about the executive position can probably gut their area, eliminate all but a small group of employees, and look like a genius for a while, running their organization like a real boss, with miraculous low payroll.
No, a politically adroit person would find people who would produce more value to the firm than the division did before him. Reducing your own body count is the last thing an executive wants. An executive justifies his personal growth in power by managing more people. Reducing his head count is tantamount to admitting that his role is growing less relevant. Increasing output contribution to the overall organizational success justifies growing your division (ie, increasing your relevance).
The best development manager I've ever seen had a philosophy degree and no formal technical training. He was a very talented programmer and the kind of manager who knew how to nurture people into life-long successful careers.
Being politically adroit is an essential job skill for a high level executive. You wouldn't won't to work for an executive who has technical skills, but who doesn't know how to play politics. Your part of the organization would quickly become the guys with all the responsibilities and no say. Everything that's ever wrong would quickly become your fault and everything that's right would never be credited to you. You may think that "winning" should not be important to a productive environment, but you will stop thinking that way once you try losing.
Would you refuse to name a criminal out of fear of putting an innocent person in jail?
That's exactly what every responsible news outlet does. Every perpetrator of a crime is always reported to allegedly have committed a crime until they are convicted. Reporting otherwise would cast aspersions on someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime and who, therefore, is considered innocent under our system of government. Since you simply don't know that someone is paid to hack unless you were present in the meeting in which the money was exchange for the services (and even then you don't know if it was a joke), you can't claim that someone is saying something because they are a paid shill or because they genuinely believe what they are saying. I don't know where you get the whole "hacker" nonsense, btw. Shilling for a cause has been considered hacking.
This will work until Facebook has a false positive on such identification twice. First time it will sow doubt. After the 2nd time the whole mechanism will become a subject for ridicule.
Yeah, the whole point is to preserve anonymity while identifying likely propaganda. I am guessing you already understand that. And that's why you are so frustrated -- you want to destroy anonymity.
As far as you know. Newt Gingrich paid for millions for twitter followers when he ran for President (in 2012). And most of his followers were identified as having fake names. So that campaign definitely did have large numbers of fake accounts. Just because some other campaign didn't, doesn't mean that principle does not hold. Groupthink trumps authoritative sources. The only way to counter fake news is to identify the location of the sources or to show that they are posting through the same VPNs.
Geolocation databases are bullshit.
The more value they provide, the more accurate they'll become. There will be huge financial pressure and a lot of competition to get geolocation right if every post will depend on it. As for VPN's, you can detect that, too. And simply identify it as such. Not much value in hiding behind a VPN if your posts also say that you are posting through a VPN which ends in UK (even though you are most likely posting from Novosibirsk).
Uh, or maybe just if you're one of a bunch of people spending hundreds of thousands on ads, pretending to be from American political organizations, and operating out of an FSB front in St. Petersburg?
ditto
This doesn't quite work. Creating thousands or even millions of fake accounts to create a perception of groupthink narrative cannot be countered with 1 authoritative source. The groupthink news can easily smear a few authoritative sources by painting them as propaganda. I was surprised when roughly 5-10 years ago people started mocking the idea of "freedom" on the internet as foolish. It's not so surprising when you realize that foreign propaganda outlets manage to convince their own populations that this is a foolish notion and they use the same methods on domestic US consumption. Identifying location of each post is the only way to counter this smurfing of information bombardment. Imagine if the (now infamous) story about "Macedonian content farmers" was real. If all the posts they made on social media were real, they would have little to no impact. Who would trust a massive flood of posts from Macedonia?
You can preserve anonymity and (mostly) know when someone is posting from a foreign country. Simply put geolocation of each post, but don't put the exact location. Only identify the municipality and the country from which the post was made.
I was being sarcastic, as you may have guessed. To your point though, why wouldn't there be a Constitutional amendment authorizing other branches of armed forces? Would any state really object to it?
I didn't miss it. I just found it boring, uninsightful and demonstrative of the ignorance so often displayed by those who use invisible hand as some boogie monster. They miss that it's the immediate wishes expressed by the people at any one time.
Wait, are you treating that living document as a legal document? What's next? You gonna think that the Government has the domain over tariffs and border protection?
Well, in all fairness, most companies also have prohibitions on being drunk on the job. If you test positive for alcohol, that would qualify you for dismissal, too. It's just that no one ever tests.
Reducing H1-Bs only means you'll be increasing offshored positions.
Most companies doing the offshoring are big enough that they can be discouraged with protective tariffs.