Less than 33 cents a day... Few companies have that low of an overhead per customer.
Sorry, that's just how much they charge us to be billed! Most big companies are more efficient than that. Besides, the IRS doesn't even send you a bill. It expects you to write up your own.
I wonder what the numbers are for California, likely not so good.
If there's any organization capable of being more bloated and dysfunctional than the US federal government, it's the California state government.
Even so, the rumors I hear suggest the IRS is worse. IANACPA
I am not implying "Microsoft may leak" I am implying "the details may leak from Microsoft or from the process of communicating to them, or even from the computer I use to send to them".
So... You're assuming that serious security researchers use insecure means of communication* and have spyware infested computers? Once you throw out the ridiculous, you end up contradicting yourself.
Seeing that Microsoft security problems are ubiquitous, have you heard any claims that they have leaked security problems prior to the patch before? (It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think non-trivial means what you think it means.)
*(Email isn't always secure, but it can be if both SMTP servers support TLS. If it leaks from a breach of the Microsoft server, then it's just an example of Microsoft leaking info. If an employee is dirty, then it's an example of Microsoft leaking.)
If you think their malice is bad, their incompetence can sometimes be worse.
The IRS is incapable of admitting mistakes. I've heard of government workers being double-taxed, and their wages garnished for years. I've heard of people being flagged for audit multiple times after an audit had already been completed. From what I've been told, any CPA could go on and on with the list of abuses. (intentional and otherwise)
The IRS is as bloated, dysfunctional, and corrupt as our tax code.
The entire point is that delay in notification for people that their systems are vulnerable after a vulnerability has been disclosed to anyone increases the risk for those who are responsible. As they say, a secret only stays secret when it is known to exactly one person.
To be perfectly clear, you are implying that there is a non-trivial possibility that Microsoft may leak usable details about security vulnerabilities before they release patches.
I'm not going to contradict you, but that's a strong statement to be making. True or not, if I worked for Microsoft I would find it highly insulting. (I don't, by the way.)
In any case, it's Ormandy's decision; and trying to second guess his judgement between two bad possibilities is completely wrong.
It may be his decision, but it affects many people. Any second guessing and debate now may influence future decisions by those participating. Thus, your statement that this debate is wrong is baseless. It may come to nothing, or it may bear fruit.
The IRS costs apx $12 billion, has 1142 "Forms and Instructions" (most seem to be forms). The law is reported to be 3,387 pages itself accompanied by 13,458 pages of regulation spread across twenty volumes.(http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html)
And that's just the federal tax code. We also must worry about individual state and local tax codes, many of which are nearly as bizarre and convoluted as the federal ones. Definitions frequently differ between the IRS and state agencies.
A language is a syntax, grammar, and lexicon used to communicate.
Ambiguity or confusion resulting from said syntax, grammar, and lexicon is inherently bad.
Ok. "Bad" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, though.
This special rule that alters the way possessives are formed for pronouns versus regular or proper nouns adds confusion and removes zero ambiguity. Thus it is a bad idea. It also has no grammatical basis whatsoever.
Is there no grammatical basis for having a singular neuter possessive, or no grammatical basis for using the word "its"? Let's be clear here. Every word we use today eventually came into usage and eventually became accepted as an official part of the English lexicon. ("Official" being a very lose term when it comes to the English language.)
I was, however, able to find some historic rational for your argument:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=its
its
-- late 16c., from it + 's, gen. or possessive ending, to replace his (which is used throughout the K.J.V.) as the neuter possessive pronoun. Originally written it's, and still deliberately spelled thus by some writers until early 1800s.
In other words, you're about 200 years late on the issue (not to mention the other possessives). Besides, how does codifying the word "its" add ambiguity? You pointed out edge cases where it removes ambiguity. Accepting that specific rules of grammar already deal with possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns, why can't they be used in a singular neuter form? You're trying to make an exception to what you consider an exception. Nested exceptions don't simplify language or remove ambiguity.
The same goes for the idea that you cannot start a sentence with the word "and", "but", or "because".
That has always bothered me as well. I only conform to it when I believe my writing may be critiqued. That rule has been largely ignored in contemporary English. It won't be around much longer. (Regardless, conjugations will still need to connect two or more things in a logical way and be otherwise consistent with good grammar. Many colloquial uses are still flat wrong.)
I claimed that you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s. I make this claim because in the 1980s grammar education, along with spelling, was actively attacked. Teacher's weren't qualified. Children were incapable. People cried that teaching English was unfair to minorities. English was dumbed down in order to make it accessible to teachers, under-performing students, and parents of said students.
As a result, people were not simply uneducated, they were intentionally educated incorrectly.
Clearly you're being melodramatic. There may be truth in what you're saying. It does sound like California, at any rate. It is true that grammar is simply not taught in school anymore. My impression is that it was crowded out by "more important" things. (There are plenty of things I would have gladly dropped for real grammar lessons given by any teacher with half a brain.)
There is an entire generation that thinks someone who's singing is lovely is someone who sings "lovely" instead of someone who sings lovelily. There is an entire generation that thinks a situation as serious as death is "deadly" serious instead of deathly serious or deadlily serious.
More than one generation, actually. The usage was definitely changed in American English prior to 1968, the publication date of my paper-and-ink dictionary. It contains neither "lovelily" nor "deadlily". It does, however, list "lovely", "deadly", and "deathly" as adverbs. (deadly... --adv. 7. in a manner resembling or suggesting death...)
I am surprised, though, to find old passages quoted online that contain those words. Words come and go. Such is the study of Etymology. (In fact, syntax and grammar morph o
Every.edu site I can find disagrees with you. Every English teacher I've had has contradicted you. You're going to need to do far better than "because I said so".
You make a poor pedant. Possessive plurals end using an apostrophe. Not only is there no need for a trailing 's', but adding one is incorrect.
The situation you're thinking of is the singular possessive where the noun normally ends with an 's'. In this case, adding an apostrophe and an 's' is correct, though not typically used. It is appropriate to forgo the trailing 's' because an apostrophe can also signify missing letters, particularly when it alters pronunciation (as you pointed out).
Ambiguity in a language must always be minimized in order to maximize it's ability to function as a language - be it written, spoken, etc... You may have noticed I used "it's" as a possessive pronoun.
Is this meant as satire, or flamebait? "Its" is defined as the singular neuter possessive. It is a word in its own right, divorced from generalized rules of possession. Using "it's" inappropriately would be no better than "hi's" or "he'r". We don't write "him's" or "her's". Your rationalization falls on its face.
Besides, every facet of English was slang at some point. (and german, and old saxon, etc.) To deny the evolution of language is silly.
I think the Arrogant Pedants' Society is howling with laughter over your attempted ban.
It would simplify it, for sure, but it wouldn't remove fifth amendment rights. Witnesses would still be cross examined for different perspectives. It would be interesting, though, to see when the lawyers are lying! Trials would be shorter, and there would be fewer of them. Most criminals aren't tried anyway. They reach a plea deal (more would do so). Cases involving matters of law (as opposed to matters of fact) would be largely unaffected.
Besides, there are differing degrees of belief, and therefore differing degrees of truthfulness. Any gauge, however accurate, would need to report along a continuum. A simple, binary truth/lie detector is inherently untrustworthy. Most social practices would still have value.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "social upheaval". It would cause more "social upheaval" than the Internet, But I don't believe it would be a different order of magnitude. Society has momentum, and will typically follow the path of least resistance. Our society is placated and lulled. Before a critical mass could really get worked up, it would all be over. People in power would change easily, but legal systems would not.
Good hard interrogation brings out the truth eventually... no need for water-boarding, burning with hot irons, electric shock treatment etc.
I think you're deluding yourself. Many combatants won't talk unless tortured, and then will lie through their teeth. The truth does not always come out, even eventually.
Besides, timeliness of information is frequently as valuable as the information itself.
There are still communities (mostly religious) wherein lifelong fidelity is the norm.
Personally, I blame the entertainment and marketing factions for deluding the masses into thinking that promiscuity is OK. They don't think about the deeper social consequences. They can only fathom: "sex feels good and I'm constantly being reminded of it."
You assume I give any credibility to Penn & Teller.
You seem to have missed the part where I doubted the disgruntled cop's credibility.
You assume you can convince me to go and look for part 3. It's still not worth my time.
Anybody with half a brain wouldn't get into that position without consulting their lawyer. Anybody with a quarter of a brain would be demanding their lawyer at that point.
A polygraph measures physiological stress in several ways for each question. For each question, you may be more or less stressed out. The determination of "passed" or "failed" can be extremely subjective by the very nature of the process.
You have some good points, but we're talking past each other.
My "definition of a healthy government" is one where the leaders care about the people they lead. This is regardless of the form of government.
The only reason I prefer democracy (which I did not bring up) is because it gives leaders a specific reason to care (baring systemic corruption, which checks-and-balances try to prevent). It's also harder to mask a malevolent leader in a democracy (but still quite possible).
Always remember, the right to govern stems from the consent of the governed. This does not preclude other forms of governance.
Now, back to my other post. If a healthy government is one where the leaders care about their people, then an unhealthy government is one where they do not. In such a political environment, normal citizens do not benefit from mineral wealth. Time and time again, whether it be oil in Nigeria, or diamonds in Liberia, or minerals in other 3rd world nations, the people come to see mineral wealth as a curse, not a boon.
and included an interview with a former FBI (CIA?) interrogator.
You mean former Oklahoma City cop? (I couldn't readily find part 3 - even assuming there is a part 3, it's just not worth pursuing) Frankly, neither of the professional polygraph experts came across as convincing. (nor did the hosts, for that matter)
Can you imagine the social upheaval that would take place if lies told by public figures could be clearly demonstrated?
Yes, yes I can. It would be far more pleasant than the alternatives we are faced with. (including the most likely: no change, long term)
It would be the end of our political system.
No, it wouldn't. Don't be silly. It would tear down the facade and let us vote based on fact, not fiction. It would cause temporary distress, but it would ultimately fix our system, not destroy it.
Maybe the end of our justice system as we know it.
???
As we know it, perhaps. To make it possible to flush the wrongly convicted from the prison system... to be able to eject corrupt judges and police... I just don't see the dystopia.
It would definitely send shockwaves through family life. A world where you couldn't tell a lie...
That would be unfortunate. What little harm it would cause here would be greatly outweighed by the overall good it would bring.
Polygraphs and drug dog are tools. When used properly, by honest and upright law enforcement officers (yes, they exist), they can be useful in ascertaining the truth and protecting the innocent. It's when the officers are not honest that things get hairy.
For example, polygraphs can be used to obtain false confessions. http://www.hulu.com/watch/155840/abc-2020-fri-jun-11-2010 Apparently, following hours and hours of intense "questioning", even innocent people will fail the polygraph. Add several more hours of interrogation and many people are ready to confess...
I feel sorry for most cops. For some, it's a calling. For others, it's an excuse to abuse power. For most, it's just a job. How would you like to work a job where you have to deal with people who despise you all day long. It's not a good excuse, but there is a reason why they become clique-ish and distrusting.
Such places don't change easily. Still, It is much harder to change them from the outside, than from the inside. You are right, though. Those who aren't up to that kind of uphill battle can save themselves a lot of headache by avoiding it.
FMRI is a great tool, but it's not everything people wish it to be. If what I've read is to be believed, its promoters have fallen prey to the fallacy: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
In the realm of lie detection, I just saw the Mythbusters polygraph episode. I think they missed some things in their method, but it doesn't change the fact that the polygraph got 3/3 while the FMRI only got 2/3. Yes, this is anecdotal, but then so is most of the evidence against polygraph. (some of which is surely true)
Unions lobbying politicians are part of the death spiral of California. People are only just starting to wake up to that fact. You're treading on very dangerous ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Less than 33 cents a day... Few companies have that low of an overhead per customer.
Sorry, that's just how much they charge us to be billed! Most big companies are more efficient than that. Besides, the IRS doesn't even send you a bill. It expects you to write up your own.
I wonder what the numbers are for California, likely not so good.
If there's any organization capable of being more bloated and dysfunctional than the US federal government, it's the California state government.
Even so, the rumors I hear suggest the IRS is worse. IANACPA
I am not implying "Microsoft may leak" I am implying "the details may leak from Microsoft or from the process of communicating to them, or even from the computer I use to send to them".
So... You're assuming that serious security researchers use insecure means of communication* and have spyware infested computers? Once you throw out the ridiculous, you end up contradicting yourself.
Seeing that Microsoft security problems are ubiquitous, have you heard any claims that they have leaked security problems prior to the patch before? (It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think non-trivial means what you think it means.)
*(Email isn't always secure, but it can be if both SMTP servers support TLS. If it leaks from a breach of the Microsoft server, then it's just an example of Microsoft leaking info. If an employee is dirty, then it's an example of Microsoft leaking.)
Debate good. Intimidation bad.
Granted.
If you think their malice is bad, their incompetence can sometimes be worse.
The IRS is incapable of admitting mistakes. I've heard of government workers being double-taxed, and their wages garnished for years. I've heard of people being flagged for audit multiple times after an audit had already been completed. From what I've been told, any CPA could go on and on with the list of abuses. (intentional and otherwise)
The IRS is as bloated, dysfunctional, and corrupt as our tax code.
The entire point is that delay in notification for people that their systems are vulnerable after a vulnerability has been disclosed to anyone increases the risk for those who are responsible. As they say, a secret only stays secret when it is known to exactly one person.
To be perfectly clear, you are implying that there is a non-trivial possibility that Microsoft may leak usable details about security vulnerabilities before they release patches.
I'm not going to contradict you, but that's a strong statement to be making. True or not, if I worked for Microsoft I would find it highly insulting. (I don't, by the way.)
In any case, it's Ormandy's decision; and trying to second guess his judgement between two bad possibilities is completely wrong.
It may be his decision, but it affects many people. Any second guessing and debate now may influence future decisions by those participating. Thus, your statement that this debate is wrong is baseless. It may come to nothing, or it may bear fruit.
I may be comparing apples to oranges, but...
The IRS costs apx $12 billion, has 1142 "Forms and Instructions" (most seem to be forms). The law is reported to be 3,387 pages itself accompanied by 13,458 pages of regulation spread across twenty volumes.(http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html)
And that's just the federal tax code. We also must worry about individual state and local tax codes, many of which are nearly as bizarre and convoluted as the federal ones. Definitions frequently differ between the IRS and state agencies.
A language is a syntax, grammar, and lexicon used to communicate. Ambiguity or confusion resulting from said syntax, grammar, and lexicon is inherently bad.
Ok. "Bad" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, though.
This special rule that alters the way possessives are formed for pronouns versus regular or proper nouns adds confusion and removes zero ambiguity. Thus it is a bad idea. It also has no grammatical basis whatsoever.
Is there no grammatical basis for having a singular neuter possessive, or no grammatical basis for using the word "its"? Let's be clear here. Every word we use today eventually came into usage and eventually became accepted as an official part of the English lexicon. ("Official" being a very lose term when it comes to the English language.)
I was, however, able to find some historic rational for your argument:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=its
its
-- late 16c., from it + 's, gen. or possessive ending, to replace his (which is used throughout the K.J.V.) as the neuter possessive pronoun. Originally written it's, and still deliberately spelled thus by some writers until early 1800s.
In other words, you're about 200 years late on the issue (not to mention the other possessives). Besides, how does codifying the word "its" add ambiguity? You pointed out edge cases where it removes ambiguity. Accepting that specific rules of grammar already deal with possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns, why can't they be used in a singular neuter form? You're trying to make an exception to what you consider an exception. Nested exceptions don't simplify language or remove ambiguity.
The same goes for the idea that you cannot start a sentence with the word "and", "but", or "because".
That has always bothered me as well. I only conform to it when I believe my writing may be critiqued. That rule has been largely ignored in contemporary English. It won't be around much longer. (Regardless, conjugations will still need to connect two or more things in a logical way and be otherwise consistent with good grammar. Many colloquial uses are still flat wrong.)
I claimed that you were educated in grammar during or after the 1980s. I make this claim because in the 1980s grammar education, along with spelling, was actively attacked. Teacher's weren't qualified. Children were incapable. People cried that teaching English was unfair to minorities. English was dumbed down in order to make it accessible to teachers, under-performing students, and parents of said students.
As a result, people were not simply uneducated, they were intentionally educated incorrectly.
Clearly you're being melodramatic. There may be truth in what you're saying. It does sound like California, at any rate. It is true that grammar is simply not taught in school anymore. My impression is that it was crowded out by "more important" things. (There are plenty of things I would have gladly dropped for real grammar lessons given by any teacher with half a brain.)
There is an entire generation that thinks someone who's singing is lovely is someone who sings "lovely" instead of someone who sings lovelily. There is an entire generation that thinks a situation as serious as death is "deadly" serious instead of deathly serious or deadlily serious.
More than one generation, actually. The usage was definitely changed in American English prior to 1968, the publication date of my paper-and-ink dictionary. It contains neither "lovelily" nor "deadlily". It does, however, list "lovely", "deadly", and "deathly" as adverbs. (deadly... --adv. 7. in a manner resembling or suggesting death...)
I am surprised, though, to find old passages quoted online that contain those words. Words come and go. Such is the study of Etymology. (In fact, syntax and grammar morph o
Every .edu site I can find disagrees with you. Every English teacher I've had has contradicted you. You're going to need to do far better than "because I said so".
;)
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
You make a poor pedant. Possessive plurals end using an apostrophe. Not only is there no need for a trailing 's', but adding one is incorrect.
The situation you're thinking of is the singular possessive where the noun normally ends with an 's'. In this case, adding an apostrophe and an 's' is correct, though not typically used. It is appropriate to forgo the trailing 's' because an apostrophe can also signify missing letters, particularly when it alters pronunciation (as you pointed out).
Ambiguity in a language must always be minimized in order to maximize it's ability to function as a language - be it written, spoken, etc... You may have noticed I used "it's" as a possessive pronoun.
Is this meant as satire, or flamebait? "Its" is defined as the singular neuter possessive. It is a word in its own right, divorced from generalized rules of possession. Using "it's" inappropriately would be no better than "hi's" or "he'r". We don't write "him's" or "her's". Your rationalization falls on its face.
Besides, every facet of English was slang at some point. (and german, and old saxon, etc.) To deny the evolution of language is silly.
I think the Arrogant Pedants' Society is howling with laughter over your attempted ban.
Your comment will go over the heads of many, but ...
Dude. Nice one.
Oh, come on now. You must have meant "Nice won."
It would simplify it, for sure, but it wouldn't remove fifth amendment rights. Witnesses would still be cross examined for different perspectives. It would be interesting, though, to see when the lawyers are lying! Trials would be shorter, and there would be fewer of them. Most criminals aren't tried anyway. They reach a plea deal (more would do so). Cases involving matters of law (as opposed to matters of fact) would be largely unaffected.
Besides, there are differing degrees of belief, and therefore differing degrees of truthfulness. Any gauge, however accurate, would need to report along a continuum. A simple, binary truth/lie detector is inherently untrustworthy. Most social practices would still have value.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "social upheaval". It would cause more "social upheaval" than the Internet, But I don't believe it would be a different order of magnitude. Society has momentum, and will typically follow the path of least resistance. Our society is placated and lulled. Before a critical mass could really get worked up, it would all be over. People in power would change easily, but legal systems would not.
Good hard interrogation brings out the truth eventually... no need for water-boarding, burning with hot irons, electric shock treatment etc.
I think you're deluding yourself. Many combatants won't talk unless tortured, and then will lie through their teeth. The truth does not always come out, even eventually.
Besides, timeliness of information is frequently as valuable as the information itself.
There are still communities (mostly religious) wherein lifelong fidelity is the norm.
Personally, I blame the entertainment and marketing factions for deluding the masses into thinking that promiscuity is OK. They don't think about the deeper social consequences. They can only fathom: "sex feels good and I'm constantly being reminded of it."
A polygraph measures physiological stress in several ways for each question. For each question, you may be more or less stressed out. The determination of "passed" or "failed" can be extremely subjective by the very nature of the process.
You have some good points, but we're talking past each other.
My "definition of a healthy government" is one where the leaders care about the people they lead. This is regardless of the form of government.
The only reason I prefer democracy (which I did not bring up) is because it gives leaders a specific reason to care (baring systemic corruption, which checks-and-balances try to prevent). It's also harder to mask a malevolent leader in a democracy (but still quite possible).
Always remember, the right to govern stems from the consent of the governed. This does not preclude other forms of governance.
Now, back to my other post. If a healthy government is one where the leaders care about their people, then an unhealthy government is one where they do not. In such a political environment, normal citizens do not benefit from mineral wealth. Time and time again, whether it be oil in Nigeria, or diamonds in Liberia, or minerals in other 3rd world nations, the people come to see mineral wealth as a curse, not a boon.
Sadly, no. You must start with a healthy government before mineral riches become a boon to the average citizen, let alone the poor.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/91538/vanguard-rebels-in-the-pipeline
and included an interview with a former FBI (CIA?) interrogator.
You mean former Oklahoma City cop? (I couldn't readily find part 3 - even assuming there is a part 3, it's just not worth pursuing) Frankly, neither of the professional polygraph experts came across as convincing. (nor did the hosts, for that matter)
Can you imagine the social upheaval that would take place if lies told by public figures could be clearly demonstrated?
Yes, yes I can. It would be far more pleasant than the alternatives we are faced with. (including the most likely: no change, long term)
It would be the end of our political system.
No, it wouldn't. Don't be silly. It would tear down the facade and let us vote based on fact, not fiction. It would cause temporary distress, but it would ultimately fix our system, not destroy it.
Maybe the end of our justice system as we know it.
???
As we know it, perhaps. To make it possible to flush the wrongly convicted from the prison system... to be able to eject corrupt judges and police... I just don't see the dystopia.
It would definitely send shockwaves through family life. A world where you couldn't tell a lie...
That would be unfortunate. What little harm it would cause here would be greatly outweighed by the overall good it would bring.
Please--
It may be hurtful.
It may be immoral.
It may be "wrong" in other ways,
But it's not "cheating" unless you're engaged or married.
If you want fidelity, you must ask for it.
(This is besides your point, of course.)
Polygraphs and drug dog are tools. When used properly, by honest and upright law enforcement officers (yes, they exist), they can be useful in ascertaining the truth and protecting the innocent. It's when the officers are not honest that things get hairy.
For example, polygraphs can be used to obtain false confessions. http://www.hulu.com/watch/155840/abc-2020-fri-jun-11-2010 Apparently, following hours and hours of intense "questioning", even innocent people will fail the polygraph. Add several more hours of interrogation and many people are ready to confess...
I feel sorry for most cops. For some, it's a calling. For others, it's an excuse to abuse power. For most, it's just a job. How would you like to work a job where you have to deal with people who despise you all day long. It's not a good excuse, but there is a reason why they become clique-ish and distrusting.
Such places don't change easily. Still, It is much harder to change them from the outside, than from the inside. You are right, though. Those who aren't up to that kind of uphill battle can save themselves a lot of headache by avoiding it.
FMRI is a great tool, but it's not everything people wish it to be. If what I've read is to be believed, its promoters have fallen prey to the fallacy: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
In the realm of lie detection, I just saw the Mythbusters polygraph episode. I think they missed some things in their method, but it doesn't change the fact that the polygraph got 3/3 while the FMRI only got 2/3. Yes, this is anecdotal, but then so is most of the evidence against polygraph. (some of which is surely true)
I find it ironic that you posted that as AC.
Unions lobbying politicians are part of the death spiral of California. People are only just starting to wake up to that fact. You're treading on very dangerous ground.