Truth be told, there is no need for work visas to make a knowledge transfer. The foreign employee can come by it's own accord, in a "vacation" and observe local operations, or selected US employees can be forced to tutor foreign colleagues in person or via the Internet. Those who refuse or do not produce results, are the first to go. Sure, the H1Bs streamlines the whole thing to the point where they've outsourced the knowledge transfer process itself.
...to colonize Mars. We probably have another 50 years of relative safety. But it's clear that the human body is a nightmare from a information security point of view: it will accept almost any rogue DNA and happily incorporate it in it's own cells and replicate it, like an Win98 autoruns any USB drive inserted. The attackers of such a system have a definite advantage, defenders cannot close the autorun functionality without dramatically re-engineer the human being. So all it takes is one mad genius with the right tools to create an unstoppable, airborne, deadly virus.
Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.
That's pretty much an established business strategy, to buy or subsidize your entry into a new market with profits from your existing cash cows. Google did it wih Youtube and Android, Apple did it with everything except the iPod and so on. It's certainly a gain for customers if profits, instead of being disbursed to stockholders, and invested in new products and increased competition. What set Microsoft aside was it's complete ruthlessness in leveraging it's OS monopoly to crush competitors using anti-competitive tactics that made consumers poorer.
Banning cars could save more lives - Does that mean we should ban cars?
What effects would that have on the economic productivity of the country ? In turn, how much poverty will that create ? How many extra people will die as a result of not affording medical care ?
And this is a simple utilitarian exercise where you compare lives lost with lives lost. What about more complex dilemmas (see title of post) ? Should a nation never send troops in any conflict and accept any onerous terms the adversary imposes, for the sake of preserving all lives ? Should we ban all individual choice and responsibility, ban all sugary drinks, impose a state-controlled healthy diet ?
The notion that "lives can be saved" is not and cannot be used as the sole deciding argument on a societal issue. We are free individuals, we associate in a community seeking to improve our perceived welfare - one cannot treat the welfare as a goal in itself segregated from what we as individuals want.
what makes a lawyer so special that he can talk to the cops? Are lawyers vaccinated against cop-tricks or something?
Anything dumb your lawyer says can't be used against you (since he cannot be witness against his client) or against himself (since he's not the suspect). A really really dumb lawyer can be charged with conspiracy and end up next to the defendant but it's exceptionally rare and the burden of proof is monumental (mafia lawyers involved in the same operation with their client).
You, on the other hand, are already a suspect, the tiniest slip ('I didn't like him, but I did not kill him !') can send you to the gauntlet ('Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant despised the victim - by his own official testimony'). The greatest trick your lawyer has is that he isn't you.
Talking to the police while suspected of a crime is like performing brain surgery on yourself.
he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident
"The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"
This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.
More importantly, is this something fundamental to how gram-negative bacteria develop, or is it simply the current solution evolution has produced ? It would be nice to develop biotechnology that takes evolution into account and is ready to predict a few moves ahead and minimize the probability of a helpful mutation.
It seems to me that from a computer security point of view, the human biological computer has low entropy keys and we are dealing with a massively parallel adversary that tries trillions of keys every second (billions of people infected with thousands of strains of bacteria). Meanwhile, our current "cyber defenses" (drugs) are rather crude pattern match filters that look for things like <script>, SELECT *, and other static characteristics of what we consider to flag an attacker. Luckily, biology has endowed us with a key switch defense algorithm that ensures a "rooted" system does not compromise the whole network; unluckily, the mechanism will also take unrecoverable systems offline.
Yeah, the actual argument used against this kind of GMO use is that it would cost the same to treat the root cause of the problem by teaching people to grow a wider range of crops and the importance of a balanced diet.
The "root cause" of malnutrition is societal dysfunction. We have more than enough food, energy, water, fertilizers or the potential to obtain them in every country on earth, enough to feed the world ten times over. Every person on earth prefers a balanced and diverse diet, if it's a available. When people starve or go sick it's because they are trapped in a low productivity economy, caused by corruption, war, mismanagement of public resources and usually enabled or instigated by some western power friendly to the local chieftain.
This is techie myopia at it's finest, from the "give laptops to the poor" or "internet balloons" to "vaccines via mosquitoes". We know how to make the internet work and we know how to deliver vaccines: just like we do it in the rich countries. Poor people don't need technical solutions designed to work in anarchy, they need societal reform and functional public services. While the intention behind these schemes is laudable, we should not believe for a moment they are more than bandaids in lieu of peace, democracy and working governments.
Why would any employer refuse to hire obese workers as long as they can pull their own weight, so to speak ? They are trying to make obesity a valid form of disablement so obese workers have increased protection and MORE rights compared to their regular weight peers.
Yet, the vast majority of obese people have perfectly working thyroids. This is not about recognizing that some medical conditions can derail your metabolism, which I believe no one is arguing, and should be covered by existing disability laws.
This is about treating all obese people, the vast majority of which are so because of their own choices, as disabled. Inability to control your own actions becomes a valid form of disability. It's a slippery slope because it legitimizes self harm and forces society to take responsibility. If obesity is a form of disability, so is tobacco or gaming dependence. And if treating obesity is not about making people eat less, then clearly treating dependence is not about smoking or gambling, we as a society should hold together and provide comfort: smoking places and breaks, subsidies for food when all the person's paycheck is lost in the casino, job protection when the addiction interferes with work performance, free medical coverage for resulting problems etc.
BTW, I write the above as a 220 pound man, who use to be as large as 260 pounds, and knows full well how hard it is for an obese person to control her appetite and weigh. But I fully understand it's MY body and MY choices, I'm fat because I love food, it's one of the great pleasures of my life and I wouldn't dream to blame nature or society for my fate.
Actually, the US is twice as efficient at GDP/ton of GHG, about the same as Canada, Australia, and Finland.
That's because a whole lot of that 15 trillion GDP is produced on Wall Street, Redmond and Hollywood - non tangible goods. As the GP said, per inhabitant USA produce far far more CO2 than China, and a CO2 tax would absolutely cripple US manufacturing and exports.
You don't have to print humans, just synthesize a memorized genome and throw it into an artificial womb. Done to death in SciFi literature and certainly within the means of 21th century technology. It's certainly interesting if a human raised entirely by a computer can really qualify as human.
And why do it ? Just to spread the human disease in the universe ? Why not simply send the artificial intelligence that is necessary anyway to make such a mission a success ?
JS on the server is clearly big contender for PHP: it's great for quick and dirty prototyping, awful for large projects, and significantly faster than PHP.
JS is the perfect recipe for language lock-in that's even stronger than PHP: front end developers already "know" it, they write a botched version of the backend code that 10 years later turns into an incomprehensible behemoth; any attempt to rewrite it will be rejected for "performance" reasons.
What you need to expect in a case like this (assuming you can pull the perfect crime, technically speaking, and leave no digital tracks) is be prepared to face the most vicious face of law enforcement. The officers will know you did it, but they will have no proof, so they will push you to the extreme, for months or years, until they get a confession. They will ransack your home, multiple times, harass your employers and loved ones, etc. All in all, not a good side project for a geek with no soft skills.
I mean, if you can pull the perfect cybercrime and resist the best prosecutors in town, then why not hack into City Bank and transfer a billion dollars to some nice old lady in Russia ? Surely a billion dollars is better than some momentary satisfaction. You can even set aside 500 million for the purpose of bankrupting your ex employer.
The "knowledge" is no longer useful or monetizable in a world where a 20$ GPS device can do a better job and an internet connected device can do a perfect job, taking congestion into account etc.
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people
You mean to tell me, in a country where guns are illegal, the number of deaths resulting from guns is lower?
2 hundred times lower, actually. You can point all you want at countries like Canada and Norway but the truth is the much lower GINI and higher equality of these countries produces an overall violence level that US can only dream of. Still, they are at the same order of magnitude to US at gun violence (when adjusted for ownership rates) debunking the "cultural factor" hypothesis (Bowling for Columbine, etc.)
The dominant factors for a country's violence level are gun availability and inequality: unequal countries with lots of guns, like US, some African and some South-American countries have significantly more homicides, and by significant I mean statistically significant at the > 99.99% confidence level and pretty much an established scientific fact.
With respect, the state can go straight to hell. Spent fuel storage is a national emergency, not a political issue.
Than the nation should pay for it. Every affected state should bid for storage in the Yucca mountain repository, and if it reaches a reserve set by Nevada, they can use it. All proceeds go to Nevadians, after expenses. If no one is willing to pay what Nevada is asking, then no one is allowed to store their shit in Nevada.
What you are proposing is that the Government can step right it, declare your backyard a nuclear waste repo and all their industry lobyist can dump toxic shit there because it's "a national emergency". As a staunch nuclear proponent, you can go straight to hell.
Actually, pack it into a copper cylinder and bury it in a whole in a granite bedrock. Should be safe just about until the end of the world really, disposal is the best understood and cheap component of the nuclear cycle.
The whole article is more about FUD and NIMBYism than real nuclear technology.
There is no such thing as a "black market value" of a security vulnerability. Both the demand and supply have curves. I.E there are security researchers who would demand say 1 million bucks before selling the bug to the CIA (because they view that action as unethical, illegal and risky careerwise) while they would gladly accept 10.000$ in a responsible disclosure offer. Other color hats would go to the highest bidder. Similarly, there are large transaction costs and information asymmetries, it's not necessarily true that the demand and supply meet or that they can trust each other. A spy agency might rather develop in house (at a much larger cost) then shop around and rise suspicion.
In short, offering a non-trivial sum of money will always increase the costs of the average attacker and might completely shut off the low impact attacks like spam zombification, email harvesting etc., the developers of which can't invest millions in an exploit but would gladly use the free zero day+exploit just made public.
The free market will yield low competition because providing the service is a strong technical monopoly, similar to electricity, gas and water. The author proposes we treat Internet like a basic utility but this is a bad idea: the municipal internet pipe will soon become outdated, the city council will reject any improvements because "it works good enough for most citizens", a private alternative will emerge and we are back at square one.
Instead of treating internet like a utility, the preferred solution in Europe is to create a public corporation that digs the trenches and channels where fiber and equipment are placed, with equal access for all competing providers. Since the technology evolves quickly, a nimble private investor is much more efficient in upgrading the network and maintaining a competitive speed. The low tech, highly expensive trench or pole can be amortized over a few decades with a flat fee that ISPs can pass on to consumers. It works.
The issue is not choosing between the market and the state, rather we should correct market failures with keyhole solutions that restore competition without creating bureaucratic and governmental behemoths. Municipal internet is probably better than what you have now, but is still an inferior solution.
Cheap, effective, but maybe incorrect. Seems more like a bullshit proposal from a politician spewing buzzwords he can't understand:
We will found the Alan Turing Institute to ensure Britain leads the way again in the use of big data and algorithm research. "I am determined that our country is going to out-compete, out-smart and out-do the rest of the world."
The government said that big data "can allow businesses to enhance their manufacturing processes, target their marketing better, and provide more efficient services".
Let's hope some good research can come of this, it's not like basic science research is included in the budget of any corporation. Of course, it's unlikely that any of it will directly help UK, with maybe the sole exception of keeping talented researchers in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Truth be told, there is no need for work visas to make a knowledge transfer. The foreign employee can come by it's own accord, in a "vacation" and observe local operations, or selected US employees can be forced to tutor foreign colleagues in person or via the Internet. Those who refuse or do not produce results, are the first to go. Sure, the H1Bs streamlines the whole thing to the point where they've outsourced the knowledge transfer process itself.
So what a about a flu virus that implants a genius gene? Problem solved, genocide not required.
Let's extend the computer analogy: What's more likely, a virus that formats your harddrive or one that upgrades your CPU, RAM and mainboard ?
...to colonize Mars. We probably have another 50 years of relative safety. But it's clear that the human body is a nightmare from a information security point of view: it will accept almost any rogue DNA and happily incorporate it in it's own cells and replicate it, like an Win98 autoruns any USB drive inserted. The attackers of such a system have a definite advantage, defenders cannot close the autorun functionality without dramatically re-engineer the human being. So all it takes is one mad genius with the right tools to create an unstoppable, airborne, deadly virus.
Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.
That's pretty much an established business strategy, to buy or subsidize your entry into a new market with profits from your existing cash cows. Google did it wih Youtube and Android, Apple did it with everything except the iPod and so on. It's certainly a gain for customers if profits, instead of being disbursed to stockholders, and invested in new products and increased competition.
What set Microsoft aside was it's complete ruthlessness in leveraging it's OS monopoly to crush competitors using anti-competitive tactics that made consumers poorer.
Banning cars could save more lives - Does that mean we should ban cars?
What effects would that have on the economic productivity of the country ? In turn, how much poverty will that create ? How many extra people will die as a result of not affording medical care ?
And this is a simple utilitarian exercise where you compare lives lost with lives lost. What about more complex dilemmas (see title of post) ? Should a nation never send troops in any conflict and accept any onerous terms the adversary imposes, for the sake of preserving all lives ? Should we ban all individual choice and responsibility, ban all sugary drinks, impose a state-controlled healthy diet ?
The notion that "lives can be saved" is not and cannot be used as the sole deciding argument on a societal issue. We are free individuals, we associate in a community seeking to improve our perceived welfare - one cannot treat the welfare as a goal in itself segregated from what we as individuals want.
what makes a lawyer so special that he can talk to the cops? Are lawyers vaccinated against cop-tricks or something?
Anything dumb your lawyer says can't be used against you (since he cannot be witness against his client) or against himself (since he's not the suspect). A really really dumb lawyer can be charged with conspiracy and end up next to the defendant but it's exceptionally rare and the burden of proof is monumental (mafia lawyers involved in the same operation with their client).
You, on the other hand, are already a suspect, the tiniest slip ('I didn't like him, but I did not kill him !') can send you to the gauntlet ('Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant despised the victim - by his own official testimony'). The greatest trick your lawyer has is that he isn't you.
Talking to the police while suspected of a crime is like performing brain surgery on yourself.
he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident
"The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"
This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.
More importantly, is this something fundamental to how gram-negative bacteria develop, or is it simply the current solution evolution has produced ? It would be nice to develop biotechnology that takes evolution into account and is ready to predict a few moves ahead and minimize the probability of a helpful mutation.
It seems to me that from a computer security point of view, the human biological computer has low entropy keys and we are dealing with a massively parallel adversary that tries trillions of keys every second (billions of people infected with thousands of strains of bacteria). Meanwhile, our current "cyber defenses" (drugs) are rather crude pattern match filters that look for things like <script>, SELECT *, and other static characteristics of what we consider to flag an attacker. Luckily, biology has endowed us with a key switch defense algorithm that ensures a "rooted" system does not compromise the whole network; unluckily, the mechanism will also take unrecoverable systems offline.
Yeah, the actual argument used against this kind of GMO use is that it would cost the same to treat the root cause of the problem by teaching people to grow a wider range of crops and the importance of a balanced diet.
The "root cause" of malnutrition is societal dysfunction. We have more than enough food, energy, water, fertilizers or the potential to obtain them in every country on earth, enough to feed the world ten times over. Every person on earth prefers a balanced and diverse diet, if it's a available. When people starve or go sick it's because they are trapped in a low productivity economy, caused by corruption, war, mismanagement of public resources and usually enabled or instigated by some western power friendly to the local chieftain.
This is techie myopia at it's finest, from the "give laptops to the poor" or "internet balloons" to "vaccines via mosquitoes". We know how to make the internet work and we know how to deliver vaccines: just like we do it in the rich countries. Poor people don't need technical solutions designed to work in anarchy, they need societal reform and functional public services. While the intention behind these schemes is laudable, we should not believe for a moment they are more than bandaids in lieu of peace, democracy and working governments.
Why would any employer refuse to hire obese workers as long as they can pull their own weight, so to speak ? They are trying to make obesity a valid form of disablement so obese workers have increased protection and MORE rights compared to their regular weight peers.
Yet, the vast majority of obese people have perfectly working thyroids. This is not about recognizing that some medical conditions can derail your metabolism, which I believe no one is arguing, and should be covered by existing disability laws.
This is about treating all obese people, the vast majority of which are so because of their own choices, as disabled. Inability to control your own actions becomes a valid form of disability. It's a slippery slope because it legitimizes self harm and forces society to take responsibility. If obesity is a form of disability, so is tobacco or gaming dependence. And if treating obesity is not about making people eat less, then clearly treating dependence is not about smoking or gambling, we as a society should hold together and provide comfort: smoking places and breaks, subsidies for food when all the person's paycheck is lost in the casino, job protection when the addiction interferes with work performance, free medical coverage for resulting problems etc.
BTW, I write the above as a 220 pound man, who use to be as large as 260 pounds, and knows full well how hard it is for an obese person to control her appetite and weigh. But I fully understand it's MY body and MY choices, I'm fat because I love food, it's one of the great pleasures of my life and I wouldn't dream to blame nature or society for my fate.
the vast majority of plants *do not eat*, yet they gain non-water mass. Humans aren't a closed system.
The stupidity enclosed in the post above has increased my intracranial pressure to the point of spontaneous detonation.
Actually, the US is twice as efficient at GDP/ton of GHG, about the same as Canada, Australia, and Finland.
That's because a whole lot of that 15 trillion GDP is produced on Wall Street, Redmond and Hollywood - non tangible goods. As the GP said, per inhabitant USA produce far far more CO2 than China, and a CO2 tax would absolutely cripple US manufacturing and exports.
You don't have to print humans, just synthesize a memorized genome and throw it into an artificial womb. Done to death in SciFi literature and certainly within the means of 21th century technology. It's certainly interesting if a human raised entirely by a computer can really qualify as human.
And why do it ? Just to spread the human disease in the universe ? Why not simply send the artificial intelligence that is necessary anyway to make such a mission a success ?
JS on the server is clearly big contender for PHP: it's great for quick and dirty prototyping, awful for large projects, and significantly faster than PHP.
JS is the perfect recipe for language lock-in that's even stronger than PHP: front end developers already "know" it, they write a botched version of the backend code that 10 years later turns into an incomprehensible behemoth; any attempt to rewrite it will be rejected for "performance" reasons.
Anyone in IT that might be disgruntled?
What you need to expect in a case like this (assuming you can pull the perfect crime, technically speaking, and leave no digital tracks) is be prepared to face the most vicious face of law enforcement. The officers will know you did it, but they will have no proof, so they will push you to the extreme, for months or years, until they get a confession. They will ransack your home, multiple times, harass your employers and loved ones, etc. All in all, not a good side project for a geek with no soft skills.
I mean, if you can pull the perfect cybercrime and resist the best prosecutors in town, then why not hack into City Bank and transfer a billion dollars to some nice old lady in Russia ? Surely a billion dollars is better than some momentary satisfaction. You can even set aside 500 million for the purpose of bankrupting your ex employer.
The "knowledge" is no longer useful or monetizable in a world where a 20$ GPS device can do a better job and an internet connected device can do a perfect job, taking congestion into account etc.
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people
You mean to tell me, in a country where guns are illegal, the number of deaths resulting from guns is lower?
2 hundred times lower, actually. You can point all you want at countries like Canada and Norway but the truth is the much lower GINI and higher equality of these countries produces an overall violence level that US can only dream of. Still, they are at the same order of magnitude to US at gun violence (when adjusted for ownership rates) debunking the "cultural factor" hypothesis (Bowling for Columbine, etc.)
The dominant factors for a country's violence level are gun availability and inequality: unequal countries with lots of guns, like US, some African and some South-American countries have significantly more homicides, and by significant I mean statistically significant at the > 99.99% confidence level and pretty much an established scientific fact.
With respect, the state can go straight to hell. Spent fuel storage is a national emergency, not a political issue.
Than the nation should pay for it. Every affected state should bid for storage in the Yucca mountain repository, and if it reaches a reserve set by Nevada, they can use it. All proceeds go to Nevadians, after expenses. If no one is willing to pay what Nevada is asking, then no one is allowed to store their shit in Nevada.
What you are proposing is that the Government can step right it, declare your backyard a nuclear waste repo and all their industry lobyist can dump toxic shit there because it's "a national emergency". As a staunch nuclear proponent, you can go straight to hell.
Actually, pack it into a copper cylinder and bury it in a whole in a granite bedrock. Should be safe just about until the end of the world really, disposal is the best understood and cheap component of the nuclear cycle.
The whole article is more about FUD and NIMBYism than real nuclear technology.
There is no such thing as a "black market value" of a security vulnerability. Both the demand and supply have curves. I.E there are security researchers who would demand say 1 million bucks before selling the bug to the CIA (because they view that action as unethical, illegal and risky careerwise) while they would gladly accept 10.000$ in a responsible disclosure offer. Other color hats would go to the highest bidder. Similarly, there are large transaction costs and information asymmetries, it's not necessarily true that the demand and supply meet or that they can trust each other. A spy agency might rather develop in house (at a much larger cost) then shop around and rise suspicion.
In short, offering a non-trivial sum of money will always increase the costs of the average attacker and might completely shut off the low impact attacks like spam zombification, email harvesting etc., the developers of which can't invest millions in an exploit but would gladly use the free zero day+exploit just made public.
The free market will yield low competition because providing the service is a strong technical monopoly, similar to electricity, gas and water. The author proposes we treat Internet like a basic utility but this is a bad idea: the municipal internet pipe will soon become outdated, the city council will reject any improvements because "it works good enough for most citizens", a private alternative will emerge and we are back at square one.
Instead of treating internet like a utility, the preferred solution in Europe is to create a public corporation that digs the trenches and channels where fiber and equipment are placed, with equal access for all competing providers. Since the technology evolves quickly, a nimble private investor is much more efficient in upgrading the network and maintaining a competitive speed. The low tech, highly expensive trench or pole can be amortized over a few decades with a flat fee that ISPs can pass on to consumers. It works.
The issue is not choosing between the market and the state, rather we should correct market failures with keyhole solutions that restore competition without creating bureaucratic and governmental behemoths. Municipal internet is probably better than what you have now, but is still an inferior solution.
Here's a map of the pings:
http://theaviationist.com/wp-c...
Cheap, effective, but maybe incorrect. Seems more like a bullshit proposal from a politician spewing buzzwords he can't understand:
We will found the Alan Turing Institute to ensure Britain leads the way again in the use of big data and algorithm research.
"I am determined that our country is going to out-compete, out-smart and out-do the rest of the world."
The government said that big data "can allow businesses to enhance their manufacturing processes, target their marketing better, and provide more efficient services".
Let's hope some good research can come of this, it's not like basic science research is included in the budget of any corporation. Of course, it's unlikely that any of it will directly help UK, with maybe the sole exception of keeping talented researchers in the country.