Still can't print with the latest issue of Open Office on OSX. Forums online tell us its a feature, or a bad driver (not using a driver all other apps print flawlessly) but definitely not a bug.
I guess the feature they are referring to is you can export to PDF and print.
Insightful? There's nothing insightful about being an anarchist...even less so on/.
Might be insightful if you had pointed out that civil rights (granted to you by state via common law) and human rights ("God" given for just being a human) are actually useful ideas, but you went in the opposite direction. I can only recon this direction to anarchy, which is cognitively dissonant with your final conclusion:
>Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you)
I have news for you, you are governed. It's worked out pretty well at times, and not so well at other times. You are governed by society at large- what is sad is that society is now defined by whomever spends the loudest.
I've always thought there should be posted minimums and the law/convention should say no faster than 20-30kph over posted minimum on ANY road. (for instance a 50 would be posted as 20kph min). Speed limits on highways should be trashed, with a blanket law that no faster than 140kph for safety. This seems counter intuitive but it addresses several issues:
* slower, meandering, indecisive, unpredictable traffic is far more dangerous than controlled "speeding" * it rids us of speeding scope creep (ie everyone else is doing 10 over) and would normalize traffic speeds subconsciously * it encourages drivers to drives as they are comfortable, not as they fear
*Full disclosure, I tend to disregard limits and drive at whatever speed I feel is safe for myself and those around me. It's not uncommon for me to drive 20 over, or 10 under depending on conditions and traffic.
>- management's role is to assess the risks presented by the engineers and determine an acceptable curse of action in the face of differing assessments >The real problem lies with the organization - from the engineers who assess the risks and presented the results to the managers who made the decision to launch
No, it was very well established in the "post mortem" that the decision to launch was made for mostly political reasons, in the direct face of engineer's risk assessments. It was found assessments, if any had very little to do with it. It is not Managements job to re-assess risk. Engineers both quantify and qualify risk. Management ignored these risks for political gain.
>Actually, it is both very understandable and important to understand what lead to the decision - understanding is the first step to fixing.
No it is not, it was unmitigated risk taking by NASA management. I don't know what the hell you're off about on understanding what happened. Of COURSE. You seem to be the only person on the planet who DOES NOT understand what happened, why it happened, or what risks were identified prior to launch.
>The real problem, IMHO, is that no one was able to clearly quantify the risk in a manner that made people understand the real risk and take the right action, which lead to the loss of the vehicle and the crew.
Really? because this dead fellow we're discussing was very much able to quantify the risk of shuttle failure (Not just due to frozen brittle gaskets) to something like 1 in 50 launches. Hey, a few dozen launches later....
>produce conflicting opinions, make mistakes, and are subject to the same type of biases
Management has no business assessing risk as they are susceptible to efficiency bias. When 3 engineers tell you about a high probability of fault, you had damn well listen when it comes to mission critical. (Can we agree the shuttle is mission critical?) Managers should take their cues about fault probability from engineers, not a statistics class they took once. When it comes to mission critical, all management should be saying is "How do we mitigate this risk?".
>Understandable is different than acceptable -
This is why I separated the two. It's not acceptable. It's not understandable. It's incomprehensible. I cannot grok how putting 2.5 Billion in 1986 dollars up in smoke was good management, or even comprehensible in the situation we discovered after the fact.
>That's hardly a straw man but a very real consideration in post event investigation. It's very easy to go in and say "here's where you screwed up" and very difficult to determine why they screwed up.
I think you had missed my point when you made this comment. I don't think anyone here is arguing about the value of a proper Root Cause Analysis during the post-mortem. The problem here though is far more sinister, where politic trumps reason: engineers and extremely high risk profiles not being accepted by management. In fact in most risk-averse business scenarios, the mere fact that something is so polarized/politicized is a major indicator that risk analysis needs to be revisted before proceeding.... So it's not useful to point out that hindsight is 20/20 when the issue here is clearly using foresight to mitigate extreme risk.
This is why management has no business in risk analysis. Management needs to stick to risk *reporting* and decision making based on a proper risk assessment carried out by engineers ESPECIALLY when lives and billions in equipment are on the line. You are really just saying the same thing as the parent post, except that it is somehow acceptable (or at the very least understandable!) that, managers are making poor risk assessments. It's neither acceptable nor excusable.
It's an awful strawman to point out that hindsight is always 20-20. Of course it is!
Methinks the RIAA ought to allow OPEN to stand, and then hedge their racket by sending some of their best lawyers to vigorously enforce it via due process to a bitchin' soundtrack. They could even get the MPAA involved and do a montage. That way people will buy it on the left, right AND up the middle.
Agreed, at worst AGW is a useful hypothesis, but you have to admit so was the bible at some point. I'm keeping an open mind while endeavouring to reduce my *energy* footprint as a matter of good survival.
He doesn't claim the US is the cause, it is the symptom of their inability to shield culture from technology.
I think this is why most people in Canada are upset the CRTC even exists to "protect Canadian culture". This backwards notion that culture is static and not subject to disruption is offensive to most Canadians and suspect more than a few Quebecer's within Canada.
I'm not an expert in the deployment of GPS, but is this not what we would consider a real-world test? Why should they be set up to pass the test, by only testing the latest deployments of GPS?
Don't you test, in order to understand previous unknowns or to flesh out previously unforeseen scenarios?
It does actual damage. Damage to what, your AP switchover? Big deal if you don't intend to do that (ie most home routers). This is hardly damage to the security model, it's damage to the network fabric, which most people don't give a lick about well past the last mile.
Furthermore, what's to learn beyond 'don't'? No one has answered this rhetorical question (because there is no answer). First of all I know for a fact the implications of hiding your SSID or relatively benign to security and less than idea in terms of promiscuity. WHO CARES?
and second of all this mysterious whitepaper is AWOL.
If you could read your own link you'd discover there is nothing to learn from a 404 whitepaper. Notwithstanding I'm fully aware of the implications of hiding your SSID. But your crusty and ineffectual "don't" implies there is something beyond SSID ineffectiveness that we ought to be aware of. (hint: it doesn't really matter does it, if someone wants to hack your wireless they will).
So I guess it's everyone's loss because someone here is unable to communicate properly. How can anyone take you seriously when you surmise your position as just 'don't', especially when evidence doesn't exactly support you in your quest to appear to be 100% effective all the time. By your logic no one should bother to physically hide strategic military installations from the US Military.
Summary: Do not hire 1u3hr for your company. He will just belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him in full.
Aye it is theatre, but I take objection to this "Don't" bullshit as if that's somehow insightful or helpful to the conversation. It's classic/. "I disagree with the premise so I assassinate the paradigm" bullshit which has driven away many a professional reader, myself included.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a basic principal of crowdsourcing. Call it the Resume wiki-effect
I don't know what you're talking about. Ice9 has worked out famously.
Somebody give this fellow modpoints!
Best answer in thread. Finally someone who gets it!
Still can't print with the latest issue of Open Office on OSX. Forums online tell us its a feature, or a bad driver (not using a driver all other apps print flawlessly) but definitely not a bug.
I guess the feature they are referring to is you can export to PDF and print.
Insightful? There's nothing insightful about being an anarchist...even less so on /.
Might be insightful if you had pointed out that civil rights (granted to you by state via common law) and human rights ("God" given for just being a human) are actually useful ideas, but you went in the opposite direction. I can only recon this direction to anarchy, which is cognitively dissonant with your final conclusion:
>Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you)
I have news for you, you are governed. It's worked out pretty well at times, and not so well at other times. You are governed by society at large- what is sad is that society is now defined by whomever spends the loudest.
+1 insightful for meddlesome.
I've always thought there should be posted minimums and the law/convention should say no faster than 20-30kph over posted minimum on ANY road. (for instance a 50 would be posted as 20kph min). Speed limits on highways should be trashed, with a blanket law that no faster than 140kph for safety. This seems counter intuitive but it addresses several issues:
* slower, meandering, indecisive, unpredictable traffic is far more dangerous than controlled "speeding"
* it rids us of speeding scope creep (ie everyone else is doing 10 over) and would normalize traffic speeds subconsciously
* it encourages drivers to drives as they are comfortable, not as they fear
*Full disclosure, I tend to disregard limits and drive at whatever speed I feel is safe for myself and those around me. It's not uncommon for me to drive 20 over, or 10 under depending on conditions and traffic.
>- management's role is to assess the risks presented by the engineers and determine an acceptable curse of action in the face of differing assessments
>The real problem lies with the organization - from the engineers who assess the risks and presented the results to the managers who made the decision to launch
No, it was very well established in the "post mortem" that the decision to launch was made for mostly political reasons, in the direct face of engineer's risk assessments. It was found assessments, if any had very little to do with it. It is not Managements job to re-assess risk. Engineers both quantify and qualify risk. Management ignored these risks for political gain.
>Actually, it is both very understandable and important to understand what lead to the decision - understanding is the first step to fixing.
No it is not, it was unmitigated risk taking by NASA management. I don't know what the hell you're off about on understanding what happened. Of COURSE. You seem to be the only person on the planet who DOES NOT understand what happened, why it happened, or what risks were identified prior to launch.
>The real problem, IMHO, is that no one was able to clearly quantify the risk in a manner that made people understand the real risk and take the right action, which lead to the loss of the vehicle and the crew.
Really? because this dead fellow we're discussing was very much able to quantify the risk of shuttle failure (Not just due to frozen brittle gaskets) to something like 1 in 50 launches. Hey, a few dozen launches later....
Very much not confused thank you.
>produce conflicting opinions, make mistakes, and are subject to the same type of biases
Management has no business assessing risk as they are susceptible to efficiency bias. When 3 engineers tell you about a high probability of fault, you had damn well listen when it comes to mission critical. (Can we agree the shuttle is mission critical?) Managers should take their cues about fault probability from engineers, not a statistics class they took once. When it comes to mission critical, all management should be saying is "How do we mitigate this risk?".
>Understandable is different than acceptable -
This is why I separated the two. It's not acceptable. It's not understandable. It's incomprehensible. I cannot grok how putting 2.5 Billion in 1986 dollars up in smoke was good management, or even comprehensible in the situation we discovered after the fact.
>That's hardly a straw man but a very real consideration in post event investigation. It's very easy to go in and say "here's where you screwed up" and very difficult to determine why they screwed up.
I think you had missed my point when you made this comment. I don't think anyone here is arguing about the value of a proper Root Cause Analysis during the post-mortem. The problem here though is far more sinister, where politic trumps reason: engineers and extremely high risk profiles not being accepted by management. In fact in most risk-averse business scenarios, the mere fact that something is so polarized/politicized is a major indicator that risk analysis needs to be revisted before proceeding.... So it's not useful to point out that hindsight is 20/20 when the issue here is clearly using foresight to mitigate extreme risk.
This is why management has no business in risk analysis. Management needs to stick to risk *reporting* and decision making based on a proper risk assessment carried out by engineers ESPECIALLY when lives and billions in equipment are on the line. You are really just saying the same thing as the parent post, except that it is somehow acceptable (or at the very least understandable!) that, managers are making poor risk assessments. It's neither acceptable nor excusable.
It's an awful strawman to point out that hindsight is always 20-20. Of course it is!
You need to read more if you missed reference to OWS
And this is why people need to lobby and beat the RIAA at their own game. They only appear to be powerful!
Methinks the RIAA ought to allow OPEN to stand, and then hedge their racket by sending some of their best lawyers to vigorously enforce it via due process to a bitchin' soundtrack. They could even get the MPAA involved and do a montage. That way people will buy it on the left, right AND up the middle.
But they're not smart enough to think of that.
Agreed, at worst AGW is a useful hypothesis, but you have to admit so was the bible at some point. I'm keeping an open mind while endeavouring to reduce my *energy* footprint as a matter of good survival.
>Anonymous stopped all action upon realizing that what they do is a public relation dream
Why does it never occur to anyone that Anonymous are what are known as 'useful idiots'.
You are free to find another VOIP provider that does not permit P2P traffic at all.
He doesn't claim the US is the cause, it is the symptom of their inability to shield culture from technology.
I think this is why most people in Canada are upset the CRTC even exists to "protect Canadian culture". This backwards notion that culture is static and not subject to disruption is offensive to most Canadians and suspect more than a few Quebecer's within Canada.
Right. In testing you rig to fail, not to pass.
I did, I would throw you all my mod points if I could! Far more insightful than my own :)
This was my thought exactly. No one ever wants to talk legacy.
>old and incomplete GPS receivers
I'm not an expert in the deployment of GPS, but is this not what we would consider a real-world test? Why should they be set up to pass the test, by only testing the latest deployments of GPS?
Don't you test, in order to understand previous unknowns or to flesh out previously unforeseen scenarios?
It does actual damage. Damage to what, your AP switchover? Big deal if you don't intend to do that (ie most home routers). This is hardly damage to the security model, it's damage to the network fabric, which most people don't give a lick about well past the last mile.
Furthermore, what's to learn beyond 'don't'? No one has answered this rhetorical question (because there is no answer). First of all I know for a fact the implications of hiding your SSID or relatively benign to security and less than idea in terms of promiscuity. WHO CARES?
and second of all this mysterious whitepaper is AWOL.
If you could read your own link you'd discover there is nothing to learn from a 404 whitepaper. Notwithstanding I'm fully aware of the implications of hiding your SSID. But your crusty and ineffectual "don't" implies there is something beyond SSID ineffectiveness that we ought to be aware of. (hint: it doesn't really matter does it, if someone wants to hack your wireless they will).
So I guess it's everyone's loss because someone here is unable to communicate properly. How can anyone take you seriously when you surmise your position as just 'don't', especially when evidence doesn't exactly support you in your quest to appear to be 100% effective all the time. By your logic no one should bother to physically hide strategic military installations from the US Military.
Summary: Do not hire 1u3hr for your company. He will just belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him in full.
Aye it is theatre, but I take objection to this "Don't" bullshit as if that's somehow insightful or helpful to the conversation. It's classic /. "I disagree with the premise so I assassinate the paradigm" bullshit which has driven away many a professional reader, myself included.