stale $5/tub popcorn does nothing for me. But I'll go through a couple bags of microwave stuff during a movie at home. Maybe I'm not the norm, or maybe they need to redo their figures, or maybe they don't care.
After a change, I'm either going to get a few "why don't we have the latest patches" or why did you install the latest major change without the proper approval. Teaching upper management is not easy and I've got a dozen reading summary reports daily and "know" what the monthly patch changes "look like"
1) Find a way to monitor communications around illegal activity (or activity you don't like) 2) Shut it down 3) Criminals find/create a new way to communicate that can't be shut down (or monitored as easily)
I don't think he has the arguments nailed down yet. He needs to toss in some details on how it's used for child porn - that'll get support to shut down just about anything.
A few tweaks here and there, throw out that historical data (it's obviously flawed), and tweak this historical data (it's flawed but we know how to "fix" it) and I can make the model "prove" whatever you want. Now you can justify your vote with "science".
I doubt Portland will do anything like have the models predict outcome of projects for the next 10 years, then if they show success use it for the following 10 years. Instead they'll start spending now because "science" says it's ok.
How long until they announce that they may have found possible evidence that the water could contain an arsenic-based life form. The next time they feel left out and want attention I'd guess.
If Verisign won't do it, some other "reputable" (i.e. trusted by Microsoft OS) CA will sign it. How many users will see that and think "maybe it isn't really IBM".
To make it worse, IBM's IT probably won't want their private key on every hotspot so they will use something like publicwireless.ibm.com. I didn't read the article, so maybe they have a way to handle authentication from a central location (e.g. the ibm.com web server) rather than at each hotspot.
Grocery stores, malls, libraries, public parks - I see rude people everywhere. We all need our name and government ID number tattooed to the forehead, both arms, and back of the neck. Then we'll all behave better everywhere.
As a side benefit we'll be able to get targeted advertisements/marketing directed our way no matter where we are (I guess we'll need an RFID implant in addition to the tattoos)
That's what my company has (actually more, but fewer users access the dozens of other apps). Multiply that by N browsers (brand/version) and support costs go up even more. And it's not just support costs, but productivity costs after users upgrade to FavoriteBrowser V+1, and something doesn't work so they have to go through support calls/emails before being told that may be fixed in a month so go back to another browser.
We're allowed to use any browser, but if you want support you use IE Vx (where Vx is the version where all major corporate apps have passed QA and support staff has been trained).
I'm sure everyone here can write great web apps that work identically on any browser/device. Unfortunately our app vendors don't all have those skills and we prefer them working on business functionality rather than working on compatibility with next month's chrome,firefox, IE, Opera, Safari releases and the newest version of some web phone that 10 of our employees use.
I still get frequent messages on microsoft's pages saying "if you see the yellow bar with a warning at the top of the page, right-click and install the control". For years they had pages that said "you will get a certificate warning when you press submit. click ok to ignore it and continue."
Too often "process" and tools are used as a substitute for competence. It's VERY easy to follow process and design patterns and use all the latest tools and end up with a brittle design & implementation. It's also easy to create a very similar design/implementation that's is robust and extensible and easy to maintain. And 90% of the people I've worked with over the last 10-12 years wouldn't be able to look at them and determine which is better (they'd most likely say the first is better if they were told the name of the methodology and design patterns used). After a year where the first fails repeatedly (crashes, can't meet new feature deadlines, etc) and the 2nd has been a huge success, they couldn't tell you why.
FBI? Police? Divorce lawyer? Boss? Neighbor? Retailers? Stranger who finds your phone?
You personally may be reason to worry. And any escalation of private data collection needs to be considered carefully - it is just a step, and there will be future steps based on acceptance of this one. Being concerned is probably appropriate, but panicking is probably an overreaction.
But for most of your "enemies" this is not something to worry about. Your wife, boss, and neighbor don't have access to this data unless you end up in court and you probably did something else to tip them off first and in the past they could have hired someone to follow you.
FBI & police have been tracking people pretty well for a long time with credit card purchases, phone taps, security cameras, cell phone location, door-to-door interviews, APBs, etc. If you're running from them, you probably avoid these. But if they want to find out where you were all day last Tuesday when you weren't trying to avoid them, they can probably get as close as google's data.
Stores have been tracking you with credit cards, loyalty cards, etc. They probably don't care what you did all day.
A hacker breaking into google's data may be able to find patterns to know when someone is not at home or is on a deserted street. But it's probably a lot more effort and more dangerous to use that than search for credit cards in the data. They'd want to do a stakeout anyhow to verify so why not pick a target first rather than using location data to pick a random target.
As long as my email travels over AT&T equipment it doesn't really matter if my government manages my mailbox. I have to assume the government has access either way. (Same for most other telcos)
I'm sure there is plenty of slush and black ops, but it's also the military getting around political interference. In the early 90's it was something like this: The military says "we like the old helicopters and don't want the new ones". Congress says "we won't fund spare parts for the old ones so you'll need the new ones by the time they're ready." Supplier says "pay us $20k for a hammer and we'll throw in $15k of spare helicopter parts."
mainstream journalists don't want to write for the National Enquirer. It's not that the Enquirer doesn't have some well-written accurate news. It's that they don't want to be associated with the other things the Enquirer is known for.
Once you have the policy they may prevent hospitalizations. But if we build a nationwide patient database (which the govt wants) will insurers have access and be able to decide not to cover someone or that they belong in the high risk category based on these predictions. (I assume that not much will change when Obamacare fully kicks in. Maybe insurers won't be able to do this, or maybe the administration's policy of granting waivers who anyone who sneezes in their direction will continue)
I'm not talking about the individuals working on it. I'm talking about the $millions it takes to develop and market the product - the devices themselves plus the infrastructure around it. If nobody can get rich, who is going to invest that money? You may say "the state", but they will invest in 1 device at most, not a lot of competitors who will push the top devices to get even better.
I've worked in a few companies who create physical devices and it isn't cheap to develop them, much less market them. And I don't think any one of them would have been developed if not for the owners wanting to make money.
that's one reason why I prefer a congress from the other party. it would be great if citizens cared enough to tell the white house no, but we don't so I'll settle for the other party doing it just for spite (they'd agree too often if the president is their party)
We have lots of people in government using good judgement all the time. But people in power often use bad judgment and do things for selfish reasons, not for our good. We have lots of checks between the branches of government to keep individuals from abusing power. "emergency" powers scare me because they bypass the checks to some degree or another and allow abuse of power.
And I expect every law to be used as a precedent for another law. This lets them shutdown the "internet" in "emergencies". If they can do that, they should be able to do it to other forms of communication (don't shut down the internet but make twitter censor language that some say may lead to a congresswomen being shot. or disallow anonymous usage. or who know). And why not in other situations or a more liberal definition of "emergency" (stock market is falling, "lies" may be spread about candidates so no internet 30 days before elections or it may corrupt our voting process, etc)
I have no doubt that elected officials in the past have had news stories buried or delayed. And I'd bet all I own that they have "enhanced" terrorism claims made to the FISA court and that they can come up with real evidence (e.g. actual phone call, email, etc) that someone related to the tea party (or new black panthers, or whatever) has threatened to disrupt the election.
I'd rather risk the small chance that they cannot stop a terrorism threat without shutting down the internet than give them the power to shut it down. What if the progressives and tea party came together and agreed that the current government isn't working. Then worked together to convince a majority of the population. That would be a huge threat to the current government and it's also where the internet would be most useful for the citizens. But if someone in leadership mentioned today's situation in Egypt I'd have to agree that under these powers it would be appropriate to shut down the internet. I don't expect this situation soon or in my lifetime, but I'd like to leave my grandkids or their kids the right to communicate with fellow-citizens and the world when our government feels that's a threat.
a news report will be released with substantial evidence that President X did Y (something bad), and the election is tomorrow. The administration has already has "agreement" (support, blackmail, threat of lawsuits/audits unless they get everything exactly right in their report, etc) from the major news outlets to delay the story 24 hours. But news is going to get out.
"Reliable" intel may be "found" that an organization will use the internet to arrange to drop of backpack bombs at polling locations around the country. It's an immediate emergency since these terrorists are trying to disrupt our elections and kill lots of citizens and we can't let it happen. So we better shut down the internet NOW - it's risky and there will be consequences, but may save the election so worry about those later.
Slashdot Mirror
stale $5/tub popcorn does nothing for me. But I'll go through a couple bags of microwave stuff during a movie at home. Maybe I'm not the norm, or maybe they need to redo their figures, or maybe they don't care.
Need to acquire the patent for pitchforks first and shutdown all manufactures.
After a change, I'm either going to get a few "why don't we have the latest patches" or why did you install the latest major change without the proper approval. Teaching upper management is not easy and I've got a dozen reading summary reports daily and "know" what the monthly patch changes "look like"
1) Find a way to monitor communications around illegal activity (or activity you don't like)
2) Shut it down
3) Criminals find/create a new way to communicate that can't be shut down (or monitored as easily)
I don't think he has the arguments nailed down yet. He needs to toss in some details on how it's used for child porn - that'll get support to shut down just about anything.
A few tweaks here and there, throw out that historical data (it's obviously flawed), and tweak this historical data (it's flawed but we know how to "fix" it) and I can make the model "prove" whatever you want. Now you can justify your vote with "science".
I doubt Portland will do anything like have the models predict outcome of projects for the next 10 years, then if they show success use it for the following 10 years. Instead they'll start spending now because "science" says it's ok.
How long until they announce that they may have found possible evidence that the water could contain an arsenic-based life form. The next time they feel left out and want attention I'd guess.
If Verisign won't do it, some other "reputable" (i.e. trusted by Microsoft OS) CA will sign it. How many users will see that and think "maybe it isn't really IBM".
To make it worse, IBM's IT probably won't want their private key on every hotspot so they will use something like publicwireless.ibm.com. I didn't read the article, so maybe they have a way to handle authentication from a central location (e.g. the ibm.com web server) rather than at each hotspot.
Grocery stores, malls, libraries, public parks - I see rude people everywhere. We all need our name and government ID number tattooed to the forehead, both arms, and back of the neck. Then we'll all behave better everywhere.
As a side benefit we'll be able to get targeted advertisements/marketing directed our way no matter where we are (I guess we'll need an RFID implant in addition to the tattoos)
with 10s thousands of users (large corp, gov't, uni) it's a significant effort to determine if every problem is/isn't related to a release version
That's what my company has (actually more, but fewer users access the dozens of other apps). Multiply that by N browsers (brand/version) and support costs go up even more. And it's not just support costs, but productivity costs after users upgrade to FavoriteBrowser V+1, and something doesn't work so they have to go through support calls/emails before being told that may be fixed in a month so go back to another browser.
We're allowed to use any browser, but if you want support you use IE Vx (where Vx is the version where all major corporate apps have passed QA and support staff has been trained).
I'm sure everyone here can write great web apps that work identically on any browser/device. Unfortunately our app vendors don't all have those skills and we prefer them working on business functionality rather than working on compatibility with next month's chrome,firefox, IE, Opera, Safari releases and the newest version of some web phone that 10 of our employees use.
Hope my prof will let me rewrite it with the new facts.
I still get frequent messages on microsoft's pages saying "if you see the yellow bar with a warning at the top of the page, right-click and install the control". For years they had pages that said "you will get a certificate warning when you press submit. click ok to ignore it and continue."
Too often "process" and tools are used as a substitute for competence. It's VERY easy to follow process and design patterns and use all the latest tools and end up with a brittle design & implementation. It's also easy to create a very similar design/implementation that's is robust and extensible and easy to maintain. And 90% of the people I've worked with over the last 10-12 years wouldn't be able to look at them and determine which is better (they'd most likely say the first is better if they were told the name of the methodology and design patterns used). After a year where the first fails repeatedly (crashes, can't meet new feature deadlines, etc) and the 2nd has been a huge success, they couldn't tell you why.
FBI? Police? Divorce lawyer? Boss? Neighbor? Retailers? Stranger who finds your phone?
You personally may be reason to worry. And any escalation of private data collection needs to be considered carefully - it is just a step, and there will be future steps based on acceptance of this one. Being concerned is probably appropriate, but panicking is probably an overreaction.
But for most of your "enemies" this is not something to worry about. Your wife, boss, and neighbor don't have access to this data unless you end up in court and you probably did something else to tip them off first and in the past they could have hired someone to follow you.
FBI & police have been tracking people pretty well for a long time with credit card purchases, phone taps, security cameras, cell phone location, door-to-door interviews, APBs, etc. If you're running from them, you probably avoid these. But if they want to find out where you were all day last Tuesday when you weren't trying to avoid them, they can probably get as close as google's data.
Stores have been tracking you with credit cards, loyalty cards, etc. They probably don't care what you did all day.
A hacker breaking into google's data may be able to find patterns to know when someone is not at home or is on a deserted street. But it's probably a lot more effort and more dangerous to use that than search for credit cards in the data. They'd want to do a stakeout anyhow to verify so why not pick a target first rather than using location data to pick a random target.
As long as my email travels over AT&T equipment it doesn't really matter if my government manages my mailbox. I have to assume the government has access either way. (Same for most other telcos)
I'm sure there is plenty of slush and black ops, but it's also the military getting around political interference.
In the early 90's it was something like this:
The military says "we like the old helicopters and don't want the new ones".
Congress says "we won't fund spare parts for the old ones so you'll need the new ones by the time they're ready."
Supplier says "pay us $20k for a hammer and we'll throw in $15k of spare helicopter parts."
mainstream journalists don't want to write for the National Enquirer. It's not that the Enquirer doesn't have some well-written accurate news. It's that they don't want to be associated with the other things the Enquirer is known for.
Once you have the policy they may prevent hospitalizations. But if we build a nationwide patient database (which the govt wants) will insurers have access and be able to decide not to cover someone or that they belong in the high risk category based on these predictions. (I assume that not much will change when Obamacare fully kicks in. Maybe insurers won't be able to do this, or maybe the administration's policy of granting waivers who anyone who sneezes in their direction will continue)
I'm not talking about the individuals working on it. I'm talking about the $millions it takes to develop and market the product - the devices themselves plus the infrastructure around it. If nobody can get rich, who is going to invest that money? You may say "the state", but they will invest in 1 device at most, not a lot of competitors who will push the top devices to get even better.
I've worked in a few companies who create physical devices and it isn't cheap to develop them, much less market them. And I don't think any one of them would have been developed if not for the owners wanting to make money.
Under communism, who would have invented and marketed the kindle (or iphone or other devices), and why?
int EstimateSquareRoot(int val) { return 1;}
Oh, you wanted a good estimate. nevermind.
that's one reason why I prefer a congress from the other party. it would be great if citizens cared enough to tell the white house no, but we don't so I'll settle for the other party doing it just for spite (they'd agree too often if the president is their party)
We have lots of people in government using good judgement all the time. But people in power often use bad judgment and do things for selfish reasons, not for our good. We have lots of checks between the branches of government to keep individuals from abusing power. "emergency" powers scare me because they bypass the checks to some degree or another and allow abuse of power.
And I expect every law to be used as a precedent for another law. This lets them shutdown the "internet" in "emergencies". If they can do that, they should be able to do it to other forms of communication (don't shut down the internet but make twitter censor language that some say may lead to a congresswomen being shot. or disallow anonymous usage. or who know). And why not in other situations or a more liberal definition of "emergency" (stock market is falling, "lies" may be spread about candidates so no internet 30 days before elections or it may corrupt our voting process, etc)
I have no doubt that elected officials in the past have had news stories buried or delayed. And I'd bet all I own that they have "enhanced" terrorism claims made to the FISA court and that they can come up with real evidence (e.g. actual phone call, email, etc) that someone related to the tea party (or new black panthers, or whatever) has threatened to disrupt the election.
I'd rather risk the small chance that they cannot stop a terrorism threat without shutting down the internet than give them the power to shut it down. What if the progressives and tea party came together and agreed that the current government isn't working. Then worked together to convince a majority of the population. That would be a huge threat to the current government and it's also where the internet would be most useful for the citizens. But if someone in leadership mentioned today's situation in Egypt I'd have to agree that under these powers it would be appropriate to shut down the internet. I don't expect this situation soon or in my lifetime, but I'd like to leave my grandkids or their kids the right to communicate with fellow-citizens and the world when our government feels that's a threat.
a news report will be released with substantial evidence that President X did Y (something bad), and the election is tomorrow. The administration has already has "agreement" (support, blackmail, threat of lawsuits/audits unless they get everything exactly right in their report, etc) from the major news outlets to delay the story 24 hours. But news is going to get out.
"Reliable" intel may be "found" that an organization will use the internet to arrange to drop of backpack bombs at polling locations around the country. It's an immediate emergency since these terrorists are trying to disrupt our elections and kill lots of citizens and we can't let it happen. So we better shut down the internet NOW - it's risky and there will be consequences, but may save the election so worry about those later.
Mine's empty but I was going to fill it in with his address and phone.